IUL School of Sociology and Public Policy
Culture and Urban Development Policies
Beyond Large Metropolis
Elisabete Caldeira Neto Tomaz
Thesis specially presented for the fulfilment of the degree of
Doctor in Sociology
Supervisor:
Rita Espanha, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Sociology Department
ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
Co-Supervisor:
Pedro Costa, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Political Economy Department
ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
February 2018
IUL School of Sociology and Public Policy
Culture and Urban Development Policies
Beyond Large Metropolis
Elisabete Caldeira Neto Tomaz
Thesis specially presented for the fulfilment of the degree of
Doctor in Sociology
Jury:
Paula Maria Guerra Tavares, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Faculty of Arts and Humanities,
University of Porto
Helena Maria de Azevedo Coelho dos Santos, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Faculty of
Economics, University of Porto
Nancy Ann Duxbury Carreiro, Ph.D., Senior Researcher, Centre for Social Studies,
University of Coimbra
José Carlos Baptista da Mota, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Social, Political
and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro
José Soares da Silva Neves, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor, Sociology Department,
ISCTE – IUL
Pedro Costa, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Political Economy Department, ISCTE – IUL
February 2018
It is about culture as a means to happiness, as a weapon to civilisation, as a way of peoples
understanding that I want to talk about.
Helena Vaz da Silva (2001)
This work was partly funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
(FCT)
with
an
PhD
fellowship
awarded
to
the
author
(SFRH/BD/65234/2009). The views expressed are those of the author and
not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors because of their support and
advice in my PhD program.
I would also like to thank all participants in my research, especially who have willingly
shared their precious time in the discussions and interviews made.
I would like to express my profound gratitude to Catarina Selada and Inteli for the
opportunity to participate in Creative Cluster Network and other numerous projects and
seminars that enhanced my knowledge and supported my journeying in European urban policy
research. To several members of the Creative Cluster Network that made possible to establish
a groundwork to case study examination, particularly to Miguel Silvestre (Óbidos Municipality
and Executive Director at Óbidos Technology Park) and Pirkko Melville (R&D Manager at
City of Jyväskylä) for their attentiveness and helpfulness.
I would like to thank the organisation of the European researcher network COST Action
S1007 - Investigating Cultural Sustainability for the support and dissemination of the research
through the attendance of seminars, study visits and the participation in the book series.
Principally, I would like to thank the COST partners and their hosting institutions who allowed
my Short Term Scientific Missions, namely the Dr Katriina Soini (University of Jyväskylä); Dr
Hannah Neate (University of Central Lancashire); Dr Miloslav Lapka and Dr Eva Cudlinova
(University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice), and all other collaborators who have made
it possible.
To my generous friend, Renata Almeida for all the encouragement and support work
developed. Without her help, I would not be able to bring that process to a successful end.
I also cannot forget those who are close to me, especially my husband and sons for their
patience and stolen hours, and to my mother and sister, for their love and unconditional support.
I would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Portuguese Foundation for
Science and Technology for the doctoral fellowship grant.
i
ABSTRACT
In a changing world, the role of culture in promoting development has become widely
recognised as a means and resource for revitalising places, strengthening the identity and
communities’ sense of belonging, boosting the culture economy, and legitimising the action of
cultural and political elites and the implementation of new forms of governance. Alongside, the
intrinsic value of culture has been discussed, associated with subjective and aesthetic
experience and the improvement of individual and collective well-being.
The vast literature, on this subject, focuses mainly on the processes that take place in large
metropolises due to the concentration and diversity of resources, neglecting the initiatives
undertaken in smaller cities. However, the interest in understanding the challenges of these
urban centres has increased in the pursuit of a more sustainable and cohesive development in
the European context, where they have a significant expression and a central role in urban-rural
and centre-periphery relations.
This research reflects on the values and roles attributed to culture in the urban planning
strategies and development policies of four European small and medium-sized urban centres,
situated in intermediate and rural regions, namely, Český Krumlov (Czech Republic); Jyväskylä
(Finland); Óbidos (Portugal) and York (England).
Given the complex nature of these processes, this study examined through a comparative
and relational approach the dominant political discourses and practices, observing the structural
conditions and developmental trajectories that shape and are shaped by the actors' agency. This
should allow broader conclusions about the political action and cultural processes, and even
about how we perceive the transformations that we are living.
KEYWORDS
Culture; cultural policies; urban development; small and medium-sized urban areas;
comparative approach of case studies; relational analysis; discourse analysis; context-sensitive
approach; public action; cultural and creative industries.
ii
RESUMO
Num mundo em mudança, o papel da cultura na promoção do desenvolvimento passou a
ser reconhecido amplamente, como meio e recurso para revitalizar os lugares, fortalecer a
identidade e o sentido de pertença das comunidades, promover a economia da cultura, bem
como, legitimar a ação das elites culturais e políticas e a implementação de novas formas de
governança. Paralelamente, tem sido discutido o valor intrínseco da cultura, associado à
experiência subjetiva e estética e à melhoria do bem-estar individual e coletivo.
A vasta literatura sobre este assunto foca-se principalmente nos processos que ocorrem nas
grandes metrópoles devido à concentração e diversidade de recursos, negligenciando as
iniciativas empreendidas em cidades de menor dimensão. Contudo, o interesse em compreender
os desafios destes centros urbanos aumentou na prossecução de um desenvolvimento mais
sustentável e coeso no contexto europeu, onde apresentam uma expressão significativa e um
papel central nas relações urbano-rural e centro-periferia.
A investigação apresentada reflete sobre os valores e os papéis atribuídos à cultura nas
estratégias de planeamento urbano e nas políticas de desenvolvimento de quatro centros urbanos
de pequena e média dimensão europeus, localizados em regiões intermédias e rurais,
designadamente: Český Krumlov (República Checa); Jyväskylä (Finlândia); Óbidos (Portugal)
e York (Inglaterra). Dada a natureza complexa destes processos, este estudo procurou examinar,
através de uma abordagem comparativa e relacional, os discursos e práticas políticas
dominantes, observando as condições estruturais e as trajetórias de desenvolvimento que
moldam e são moldadas pela ação dos atores, permitindo deduções mais amplas sobre a ação
política e os processos culturais, e mesmo sobre o modo como percecionamos as transformações
que estamos a viver.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Cultura; políticas culturais; desenvolvimento urbano; áreas urbanas de pequena e média
dimensão; abordagem comparativa de estudos de casos; análise relacional; análise do discurso;
abordagem sensível ao contexto; ação pública; indústrias culturais e criativas.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... ii
Keywords ..................................................................................................................... ii
RESUMO ..................................................................................................................... iii
Palavras-chave ............................................................................................................ iii
List of tables ................................................................................................................ vi
List of figures.............................................................................................................. vii
List of acronyms .......................................................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.
Theme and relevance .................................................................................................. 1
2.
Research problem and questions ................................................................................ 3
3.
Brief presentation of the theoretical and methodological approach ............................ 4
4.
Chapter organisation .................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER I - INVESTIGATING CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT POLITICS AND POLICIES .... 7
1.
Regarding culture........................................................................................................ 7
2.
Relation between culture, politics and policies ........................................................... 9
a.
Cultural policy models in Europe ................................................................................ 14
b.
The value of culture .................................................................................................... 23
c.
From art and cultural activities to cultural and creative industries ............................ 27
3.
Changes in development policy discourse ................................................................. 34
4.
Setting culture in development framework ............................................................... 41
5.
Culture in international development agenda ........................................................... 47
CHAPTER II - CITIES IN CHANGING TIMES: BETWEEN LOCAL AND GLOBAL................... 53
1.
The urban agenda in multi-scalar politics and planning practices .............................. 53
2.
The place of small and medium-sized cities in European territory ............................. 69
3.
Culture and urban development ............................................................................... 79
CHAPTER III - BEYOND CAPITAL CITIES AND LARGE METROPOLIS: ANALYSIS OF FOUR
SMALL AND MEDIUM URBAN AREAS ............................................................................... 95
1.
Methodological issues in comparative research and case-oriented studies ............... 95
iv
2.
An empirical model for a relational analysis ............................................................ 107
3.
Case studies analysis and key findings..................................................................... 111
4.
A comparative overlook .......................................................................................... 190
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 203
RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 213
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 217
Appendices ........................................................................ Erro! Marcador não definido.
Annexe A ........................................................................... Erro! Marcador não definido.
Annexe B............................................................................ Erro! Marcador não definido.
Annexe C ............................................................................ Erro! Marcador não definido.
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Main international landmarks in culture and development agenda discussion
50
Table 2.2 Average per capita GDP and population growth of NUTS 3 regions as classified by
the degree of urbanisation in EU context (2001-2011)
75
Table 3.2 Typology of amenities.
77
Table 4.3 Classification of EU countries according to state systems, competencies and local
autonomy
103
Table 5.3 Categories of actors
105
Table 6.3 Case studies selected according their political and administrative system
107
Table 7.3 Main characteristics of the four cases according the key three dimensions of
analysis
196
Table 8.3 Culture development approaches in SMUA
202
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.2 Urban and location of urban agglomerations with at least 500,000 inh. .......... 54
Figure 2.2 Cities’ participation in global and European networks .................................... 62
Figure 3.2 Prevailing population settlement type .............................................................. 70
Figure 4.2 Types of SMUA ............................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.2 Unemployment rate, persons aged 15–74, by degree of urbanisation .............. 75
Figure 6.3 Urban-rural typology for NUTS 3 regions ..................................................... 100
Figure 7.3 Models of State. ESPON Project 2.3.2 ........................................................... 102
Figure 8.3 The relational model ....................................................................................... 108
Figure 9.3 Context Analysis ............................................................................................ 108
Figure 10.3 Process analysis ............................................................................................ 109
Figure 11.3 Actors analysis.............................................................................................. 110
Figure 12.3 Location of South Bohemia Region and Districts ........................................ 114
Figure 13.3 Český Krumlov District, Municipality and City .......................................... 115
Figure 14.3 Details of the renovated facades of historic centre ....................................... 117
Figure 15.3 Image of Český Krumlov with the castle and palace at the back ................. 118
Figure 16.3 Festivals in Cesky Krumlov ......................................................................... 121
Figure 17.3 Business activities involved in Castle events and restoration ...................... 124
Figure 18.3 Artistic and cultural spaces and events in the historical center .................... 128
Figure 19.3 Locatisation of Central Finland Region and Jyväskylä region. .................... 133
Figure 20.3 Jyväskylä sub-region and Municipality ........................................................ 134
Figure 21.3 An aerial view of Jyväskylä center in summer 2014 .................................... 134
Figure 22.3 Säynätsalo Town Hall................................................................................... 136
Figure 23.3 Interdisciplinary Music Research Centre ..................................................... 139
Figure 24.3 Lutakko area ................................................................................................. 140
Figure 25.3 Aerial view of the Kangas area..................................................................... 141
Figure 26.3 Creative Industries in Central Finland .......................................................... 143
Figure 27.3 Tanssisali Lutakko by Jelmu - Live Music Association. .............................. 147
Figure 28.3 Location of Óbidos Municipality ................................................................. 155
Figure 29.3 Óbidos Municipality ..................................................................................... 156
Figure 30.3 Óbidos natural and rural landscape .............................................................. 157
Figure 31.3 View of the walled town of Óbidos .............................................................. 158
Figure 32.3 “Fábrica da Criatividade” ateliers................................................................. 163
Figure 33.3 Colab at Espaço Ó ........................................................................................ 165
vii
Figure 34.3 Óbidos Literary Town: Bookstores and Folio 2017. .................................... 166
Figure 35.3 Location of the City of York in the Yorkshire and the Humber Region ...... 173
Figure 36.3 City of York Unitary Authority .................................................................... 174
Figure 37.3 City of York aerial view ............................................................................... 176
Figure 38.3 One of the pedestrian and commercial streets in the city centre .................. 178
Figure 39.3 View of the Hungate excavations ................................................................. 180
Figure 40.C Czech Republic: urban-rural typology ............ Erro! Marcador não definido.
Figure 41.C Finland: urban-rural typology ......................... Erro! Marcador não definido.
Figure 42.C Portugal: urban-rural typology........................ Erro! Marcador não definido.
Figure 43.C United Kingdom: urban-rural typology .......... Erro! Marcador não definido.
viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CEE
Central and Eastern Europe
CoE
Council of Europe
DG REGIO EU Directorate General for Regional Policy
EC
European Commission
EEC
European Economic Community
ERICarts
European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research
ESDP
European Spatial Development Perspective (EU)
ESPON
European Spatial Planning Observation Network (EU)
EU
European Union
GATT
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP
Gross domestic product
GVA
Gross Value Added
HEI
Higher Education Institution
ICT
Information and Communication Technologies
IFACCA
International Federations of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies
IFCCD
Coalitions for Cultural Diversity
LAU
Local Administrative Units
NGO
Non-governmental organisation
NUTS
Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics
R&D
Research and development
UK
United Kingdom
UCLG
United Cities and Local Governments
UN
United Nations
UNCTAD
UN Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP
UN Development Programme
WCCD
World Commission on Culture and Development
WIPO
World Intellectual Property Organisation
WTO
World Trade Organisation
ix
INTRODUCTION
1. Theme and relevance
In the last decades, a series of technological innovations, political, economic and social
events, as well as environmental changes have marked the development of cities and regions.
The ongoing processes of urbanisation are the stage where economic, demographic, social and
cultural relations continuously interact, contributing both to shape development patterns and
the nature of social relationships (Knox and Pinch, 2010). In this sense, cities are understood as
a product and a condition of the processes of social change (Harvey, 1989), and therefore,
becoming a fundamental object of study to apprehend these ongoing transformations in
contemporary societies. Moreover, in recent times, international organisations and governments
had consecutively recognised their importance as sources of economic growth and job creation.
Despite the diversity of trajectories, many European cities, testifying the legacy of earlier
modes of the economic and social organisation, have shifted to a production and service system
predominantly based on technology and knowledge, and which reflect the growing global
interdependence and competitiveness. Reinforced by the processes of change of political power
from the national to lower administrative levels, as well as by the political action of European
Union, local authorities have actively sought innovative approaches to development and new
forms of governance.
In this framework, culture has gained a central role in urban sustainable development
agenda, being especially mobilised for regeneration projects, revitalisation of local economies,
promotion of social cohesion and innovation, foster intercultural dialogue and in response to
environmental demands.
Notwithstanding the vast literature about this theme, there is some ambiguity in the role and
utilisation of culture in different contexts. Development strategies and culture merge in public
policies under several arguments and power relations. These discursive strategies are
constructed through multiple references and meanings continually influenced by the ideas and
concepts, material experiences and representations of place – imagined and lived – which are
mobilised in governance processes (Healey, 2007). Many of these policy ideas and models are
disseminated by a diversity of agents from elected officials, consultants to academics,
influencing and reshaping the strategies of policy-makers worldwide, many times without
considering local specificities and adequate methodologies of analysis.
1
In the definition and implementation of local development policies and strategies, there are
a variety of factors that shape and constrain them. In addition to the external pressures and
contextual circumstances that have impact in localities, it should be considered the agency and
power of the different actors involved in urban governance.
Speaking in personal terms, my interest in increasing the knowledge about the cultural
world has been a constant throughout my academic career and professional experience in the
creative and cultural sector. However, it was my participation in European networks and
programs through collaboration with INTELI - a Portuguese think tank on innovation policies,
and the involvement in “policy mobilities” processes (e.g. McCann, 2011, 2013, McCann and
Ward, 2012, 2013; Temenos and McCann, 2013) that the request to understand how some
policy ideas and models are developed and applied in different places and which factors
influenced them became mandatory. At that time, at INTELI, we were involved in policy advice
and the development of innovative and creative development policy models; hence we had the
opportunity to observe and discuss the local development processes with diverse actors in many
European regions and cities and at EU institutional level.
This research was developed over several years, enriched by several presentation and
discussion in international scientific conferences, seminars and working groups. During this
period, we were confronted with a poor understanding of the reality of small and medium-sized
cities and towns and the lack of adequate policy solutions to their reality. Later, this interest
gained greater recognition and space for discussion as I became involved in the research
network COST Action “Investigating Cultural Sustainability” (2011-2015) where case studies
were deepened and enriched1.
So even aware of the enormous complexity of discussing such wide-ranging questions that
can be analysed from so many different points of view and disciplines, and the difficulty in
presenting so summarily all the aspects observed and questioned, especially in the case studies,
I believe that this study contributed as a starting point for further investigations, some of which
have already been initiated, and others to be conducted in the future.
Moreover, as the processes examined are dynamic, there is a need to locate them in their
spatial and temporal context and to continue to observe them in the future.
1
https://www.culturalsustainability.eu/
2
2. Research problem and questions
The overall purpose of this study is to analyse the contemporary policies and strategies
designed for promote urban development focused on and led by culture. Research literature and
theoretical models as well as policy documents tend to look predominantly to the processes that
are taking place in large cities and metropolis due to the concentration and diversity of human,
economic and institutional resources, and neglecting the initiatives experimented in many
smaller cities and towns. Although, there is a growing interest in the potentialities and
challenges of these urban centres, beyond large metropolitan areas and capital cities, and the
way that they mobilised culture in local policies and strategies. More, there are substantial
demands for attention on those urban centres in the context of a European sustainable and
cohesive development.
Therefore, the research is centred on small and medium-sized urban centres located in
distinct EU Member States. To further the purposes of the study, and because each country has
its own typology and definition of urban areas and collects data accordingly, it will be employed
thereafter the SMUA abbreviation. This designation wants to describe a set of municipalities
with a population between 5,000 and 250,000 inhabitants, with a specific set of functional
relations within the territorial system and among spatial scales - between the centre and the
periphery, the urban and the rural, or the local and the global, with consequences for policy
formulation and development, as described in next chapters. Plus, the study gives special
attention to those localities, that according to the Eurostat urban-rural typology2 are situated in
European intermediate and rural regions. This focus, beyond large metropolitan areas and
capitals, has to do with the need to observe more closely the dynamics that are occurring in
these regions and their unique role for the objectives of sustainability and cohesion.
At first glance, it seems unquestionable that culture has a crucial role in urban development.
However, what do we mean by culture and development? Which ideas of culture are mobilised
in urban strategies and for what purpose? How do territorial characteristics influence the
implementation of these strategies? Who are the main actors and what is their role? What are
the success or failure factors? How to provide evidence about the impacts of the linkages
between culture and sustainable development? These and many other questions are binding on
everyone involved in this field.
2
This classification developed by Eurostat for the NUTS 3 regions is explained in greater detail in the
methodological chapter.
3
Thus, this thesis aims to provide better knowledge about these issues, attempting to describe
the significance of their different socioeconomic and political circumstances, as well as the
dynamics between structural forces and governance capacity (Healey, 2007; Reimer &
Blotevogel, 2012).
After that, the following guiding questions to steer the research were identified:
- What are the values and roles attributed to culture in urban planning strategies and
development policies, particularly, in European SMUA located in intermediate and rural
regions?
- How is culture involved in policy discourses and practices in different socioeconomic and
political contexts?
3. Brief presentation of the theoretical and methodological approach
To answer the questions posed above a transdisciplinary approach and a multi-level analysis
is needed, given the multidimensionality of the concept of culture but also the complexity of
contemporary urban development processes and related policy-making, that occur in diverse
and overlapping scales (Amin, 2002; Hubbard et al., 2002; Martin et al., 2003; Healey, 2007).
Thus, this research appealed to a set of theoretical and analytical contributions proposed by
different disciplines: from sociology to economics, geography and political science, given the
interest and interpenetration of the various fields. The global research process seeks to balance
a deductive approach based on strong conceptual and methodological reflections and inductive
thinking, which allows for the collection and analysis of specific data, the emergence of new
forms and possibilities of interpretation and knowledge.
The thesis begins by presenting the revision of some of the main theoretical and analytical
contributions regarding the notions of culture and development and how they, in the
contemporaneity, were operationalised in urban politics. Then, it examines the ongoing
processes taking place in European cities and towns that influence their development,
management and planning as well as daily social, economic and cultural interactions and
practices.
There are several key theorists, philosophers and urban thinkers who are alluded to during
this study to forge a suitable way of reading the case studies. However, it is not our intention to
question the theoretical work of any author or study profoundly. Such attempts are more
thoroughly accomplished elsewhere.
4
The legacy of thinkers such as Georg Simmel, Walter Benjamin, Pierre Bourdieu or Henry
Lefebvre is central in the study of urban themes linking the sociological study of cities to
cultural studies (see, for example, the work of Hall, 1997a; Kearns and Philo, 1993; Lash and
Urry, 1994; Miles, 2007; Zukin, 1995, among others). But also, the perspectives on cultural
political economy by academics such as David Harvey, Sharon Zukin or Neil Brenner which
drew our attention to the way that culture is involved in everyday political-economic practices
as well as to the restructuring processes of the urban spaces and identities (McCann, 2002).
In this sense, some authors such as Bob Jessop and his colleagues defend the need to carry
out an “integral analysis” that includes the “discursively mediated, socially constructed
character” of economic categories (Jessop and Oosterlynck, 2008: 1168). This approach helps
to stress the relation between meaning and practices and exams the selection, retention and
reinforcement of specific imaginaries as objects of economic, political or social action (Jessop,
2010; Jessop and Oosterlynck, 2008; Jessop and Sum, 2010). Accordingly, the analysis of
discourse as the “specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced,
reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given
to physical and social realities” (Hajer, 1995) has a central place, theoretically or empirically,
in this research.
In turn, theories of governance and planning shape urban politics thinking and contribute
to exam the relationships between institutional and the new political arrangements (Le Galès,
1998; Pierre, 1999, 2005; Sellers, 2002; DiGaetano and Strom, 2003; Swyngedouw, 2005; are
few examples) and the way they are determined by the specificities of each sociocultural
contexts, namely their history, attitudes and values, as well as political and legal tradition, i.e.
planning cultures (e.g. Nadin and Stead, 2008; Young, 2008; Knieling and Othengrafen, 2009).
As explained with more detail in the methodological chapter, due in large part to the farreaching nature and dynamism of the core concepts and of the urban processes, the dissertation
develops a comparative analysis of case studies as a methodological strategy. The option for
this type of research is to attempt to develop knowledge, understanding and confirmation of
hypotheses about what is common, but also what is singular to each case. In the design of the
research project and in the definition of the model that guided the empirical analysis, it was
explored a reciprocal relationship between theoretical and empirical work.
For this purpose, four cases were selected in distinct European countries: the cities of Český
Krumlov (Czech Republic); Jyväskylä (Finland); York (England, United Kingdom) and the
town of Óbidos (Portugal). The selection criteria are also further elucidated in the explanation
of the methodology.
5
4. Chapter organisation
After the introduction, the Chapter I analyses the main understandings of the concept of
culture, especially in the sociological field and its relation to the political domain. This
relationship is approached either from the viewpoint of the way the culture shapes and
determines the political action, but also from the perspective of the administration and
regulation of cultural affairs. Then, it is presented briefly the evolution of cultural policies in
contemporary as well as the values and interpretations related to different cultural conceptions.
In the same sense, a brief reflexion of the development policies is proposed and about the central
importance that culture gained in urban planning and development policies marked by the
discussions leading by international organisations.
Chapter II aims to explain the major changes that are occurring in cities and the events that
are influencing the urban political agenda. And, given the focus of the research, is described in
particular the challenges and potential of the SMUA. Finally, it is described how cultural
strategies have become one of the most popular trends in contemporary urban politics.
After having outlined a broad theoretical framework that frames the current research work,
the principal objective of the Chapter III is to discuss the main methodological issues in
comparative research and case-oriented studies. In this sense, it is explained the case selection
criteria and the design strategy for the empirical research - the dimensions of the analysis, as
well as the main techniques of data collection and processing. These methodological options
led to the elaboration of a three-dimensional research model to structure the analysis and
description of the case studies. Accordingly, the key findings are presented, followed by a
comparative view.
Finally, the last chapter contains the conclusions of the essay, seeking to answer research
questions by re-reading the empirical analysis in articulation with the revised theoretical
framework. It also seeks to synthesise some critical points of these strategies that may be useful
for political advice and future reflections. It is also pointed out the main strengths and
limitations of the research project and suggest some lines of research that need to be further
developed.
6
CHAPTER I - INVESTIGATING CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT POLITICS AND
POLICIES
Few things in human life are more powerful than ideas and concepts, and culture is one
of the most influential in all walks of life (Graham Fairclough, in Joost Dessein et al.,
Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from the COST Action
IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability, 2015: 58).
1. Regarding culture
The relationship between culture and urban development lies at the intersection between
research theories, politics and policy development, being addressed by multiple disciplines
from sociology, geography, economics to political science. Distinctive conceptual
understandings are dependent on historical circumstances in which they are formulated and
pronounce different approaches. This Chapter reviews some theoretical and analytical
contributions considered useful for the research of this relationship.
Culture is a very complex and polysemic concept3 which has been revised over the years
from different theoretical perspectives in social sciences. From the etymological study of the
word, rooted in the agricultural metaphor to indicate the “cultivation” of human capabilities, its
meaning has transformed over time. It is evidenced its conceptual expansion in the eighteenth
century with the Enlightenment ideas to include the shared knowledge and formative values
historically established, along with the concept of “civility” or “civilisation”, evoking the
collective progress in an evolutionary perspective (Crespi, 1997; Cuche, 1994; Schoenmakers,
2012).
One of the first attempts to explicitly state a scientific meaning of culture was formulated
by Edward B. Tylor (1871), proceeding from the ethnological analysis of so-called primitive
societies in the nineteenth century. In its universalistic notion, Tylor described culture as a
“complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (1871: 1). Later, some authors
3
Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn (1952) provided an extensive compilation of 164 descriptions
in “Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions”. See also Raymond Williams ([1976]
1985); Terry Eagleton (2000); Denys Cuche (1996); Franco Crespi (1997); William H. Sewell, Jr.
(1999); among others.
7
like Franz Boas developed a critique of early evolutionary approaches in favour of a
particularistic idea of culture (see, e.g. Stocking, 1966). He argued that cultures are produced
by specific historical processes which emphasised their relative value (Cuche, 1994)4. These
approaches of cultural or ethnological tradition were developed by different social scientists
such as Bronislaw Malinowski, Margaret Mead, Alfred Kroeber, or Ruth Benedict, among
others, who, in turn, influenced the use of the term among diverse academic disciplines.
In the sociological field, the examination of culture is linked to the analysis of society, and
it was developed occasionally or indirectly from the founders of the discipline such as in Karl
Marx, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber or Georg Simmel. However, their thinking allows us to
understand better the evolution and uses of the concept, interconnected with the reflection of
modern society and the transformations resulting of the fundamental historical processes such
as industrialisation, the formation of the nation-state, etc.5
Drawing on these early authors and assimilating influences from other theoretical
disciplines such as literary studies, history, philosophy, anthropology or sociolinguistics, new
directions and theories were elaborated, particularly in the post-war period in Europe and North
America that shaped a new understanding of culture as a core concept of sociology.
Given the impossibility to describe all contributions in the sociological field, we depart
from one of the renowned culture’s conception presented by Raymond Williams. Founder of
British cultural studies, he refers to culture as “a whole way of life” synonymous to everyday
life that encompasses the “meanings and values not only in art and learning but also in
institutions and ordinary behaviour” (Williams, 1961: 57; cited in du Gay, 1997). More
recently, Helmut K. Anheier and Michael Hoelscher proposed a more systematic
conceptualisation. For them, culture should be understood socially as a “system of meanings
and values”; or in an economic perspective while a “system of creation, production, and
consumption”; or in a political interpretation correspondingly to a “system of power difference,
presentation, participation” (Anheier and Hoelscher, 2015: 18–19).
4
Franz Boas (1858-1942) best-known essays are “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of
Anthropology” Science, 4, 1896: 901-908; “The Aims of Anthropological Research” Science, 76,
1983: 605-613; “The Methods of Ethnology”, American Anthropologist 22(4), new series, 1920:
311-321; among others. Boas inspired a generation of American anthropologists, notably Margaret
Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Alfred Kroeber.
5
To an in-depth analysis of the use of “culture” in social theory see for example Tim Edwards (2007)
or Philip Smith and Alexander Riley (2011).
8
In an alternative way, the notion of culture has been used across many branches of sociology
in a more restricted and specialised way, focusing on the analysis of a single or a set of cultural
activities and practices that involves a certain level of aesthetic and semiotic attributes - from
fine arts, music, performing arts, etc. to creative activities such as design, or publishing (Costa,
2002a: 102).
Taking an interdisciplinary approach, this study will try to congregate these interrelated
dimensions that mediate and are appropriate in development and planning processes of the
territories. To clarify the approach adopted, we reviewed some analytical and interwove frames
to outline what are the most useful aspects of undertaking our research.
2. Relation between culture, politics and policies
Regarding culture and politics relationship, it is implicit that both are mutually dependent
considering that culture has a political dimension, in the same way, politics has a cultural
dimension (Hall, 1997b). Most of the literature that discusses the relationship between culture
and political realm focuses, on the one hand, how culture shapes and determines the political
action and, on the other hand, the administration and regulation of cultural affairs.
The first point of view refers to the set of values, beliefs and behaviours of individual or
groups that influence the political action or the socio-cultural context in which this takes place.
The study of culture in the understanding of political processes was an object of attention since
the classic thinkers and, notably, in modern social science with the Max Weber’s analysis of
the relationship between Protestantism and the rise of capitalism in Western society (Weber,
2002 [originally published in 1930]).
In the field of comparative politics, the study of political culture has become an important
theoretical tradition, particularly after the 1960s and 1970, to explore the cultural changes in
terms of political arrangements and economic progress. One of the renowned formulations of
the concept of political culture was expressed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba (1963) and
refers to “specifically political orientations – attitudes toward the political system and its
various parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system” (1963: 13). Most political
culture research assumed that there is a set of values shared by the members of a nation-state
or group that reflect their political culture and that allowed meaningful comparisons.
By the end of the 1980s, these approaches were challenged by more cultural and
contextualised perspectives about politics, recognising the dynamic nature of culture and the
9
importance of the meaning-making practices – language and symbols – in political analysis
(Wedeen, 2002; Janoski et al., 2005). In this case, actor’s worldviews and identities become
pertinent to understand the political interests, arrangements and practices in specific contexts
and time periods (Somers, 1995; Ross, 1997).
Particularly relevant to theses research lines are discourse theories inspired by the linguistic
and structuralist/post-structuralist thinkers. Policy discourses encompass specific ideas and
values expressed by actors and the associated interactive processes of policy formulation,
communication and legitimisation in different institutional contexts (Schmidt and Radaelli,
2004; Barbieri, 2012). These analyses examine questions such as power, governance,
knowledge, mediation, among others, which offer new insights into the nature and evolution of
the relation between politics and culture.
Confronted by various opponents to the use of cultural explanations for social change (e.g.
Moore, 1966; Wallerstein, 1974; Tilly, 1975; Skocpol, 1979), authors like Marc Ross defend
their relevance in comparative political analysis, in the following terms:
1) culture is the context in which politics takes place;
2) culture defines the links between individuals and collective identities;
3) culture distinguishes groups and coordinates actions within and between them;
4) culture is the framework for understanding the actors’ actions and motivations;
5) culture offers resources for political organisation and mobilisation (Ross, 1997: 139–
141).
In the second place, the relationship between culture and political realm can be
comprehended from the point of view the process of negotiation aimed at decision-making on
the administration and regulation of cultural affairs. This approach implies to describe the
cultural policies, that is, the set of public decisions that concern with the cultural sphere that
establish the goals and resources to be mobilised, which in turn are determined by power
relations (Costa, 1997; 2007, 2000; Vestheim, 2009). A cultural policy begins when it is given
recognition of the relative autonomy of the cultural field, i.e. the actors, their positions and
relationships, being more than an inventory or a summation of detached actions (Lopes, 2000,
2003). Once more, the analysis of policy discourses on culture can reveal the rationales and
concepts that are mobilised not only in the cultural field but also in other spheres of public
policy as well as the changes in practices and actors’ role.
Thus, notwithstanding the risk of oversimplification, we will try to summarise the
institutionalisation and the main developments in the evolution of cultural policies in most
European Union countries. Bearing in mind that governments’ intervention in this area is
10
contingent of other factors such as the developments in other policy sectors and broader changes
in society (Gray, 2007; Barbieri et al., 2012; Barbieri, 2014)
Therefore, it was reviewed the principal literature about how political power has been
exercised historically by states and other government bodies focusing on the type and the degree
of public intervention to which correspond specific rationales (D’Angelo, 2000; Depaigne,
1978; Dubois, 1999, 2013, 2016; Menger, 2010; Mulcahy, 2006; Pyykkönen, et al. 2009;
Throsby, 2010; UNESCO, 2015).
The recognition of culture as an autonomous field of public intervention, in most
democratic countries of Europe, is commonly associated with the period after the end of Second
World War6. At that time, the link between culture and politics was seen as a condition for
social progress for welfare state regimes (Depaigne, 1978; Dubois, 1999, 2013; Menger, 2010;
2013; Pyykkönen et al., 2009; UNESCO, 2015). Two major competing cultural policy
government positions are primarily distinguished (e.g. Matarasso and Landry, 1999; SkotHansen, 1998). The first “framework” under the principle of democratisation of culture or a
humanistic rationale assumed as a priority the enlargement of people access to culture for
educational purposes and citizenship. Here, culture was broadly understood as an aesthetic
concept and a way of promoting the dissemination of “high culture” forms and heritage
protection. Besides, in that period there was substantial public support for cultural
infrastructures (libraries, museums, theatres, etc.) and the “monumentalisation” of public
spaces (Barbieri, 2014).
The second “framework” emerged in the result of the above position, and demands for a
more comprehensive definition of culture based on the principle of cultural democracy or a
sociological rationale. A greater diversity of groups and forms of expression were supported
by governments: from minority groups to everyday practices. There was also a consolidation
of cultural policies of local and regional basis and the rise of a set of non-state cultural actors,
such mediators and associations, involved in community development (e.g. Barbieri, 2012;
Dubois, 2013).
Changes in the following years have transformed the concepts and practice of cultural
activity and therefore public intervention in the cultural domain. The economic slowdown in
1970/80s in Western countries that caused many restrictions on the implementation of the
6
The existing dictatorships in Portugal and Spain to the years 1970 and the Communist regimes in
Eastern Europe until 1989 are some of the European cases that are distinct in the development of
cultural policies in this period.
11
welfare state model or the enlargement of the European Economic Community (EEC) – today
EU – to the established democracies of the UK, Ireland and Denmark and the beginning of
accession negotiations with post-authoritarian states: Greece, Portugal and Spain, had
significant implications in public action and correspondingly in cultural field.
In addition, technological innovation, globalisation dynamics and the embracing of a
neoliberal thinking in many Western countries have produced profound changes in cultural
policies that gradually came to include new conceptual understandings, activities and modes of
governance (on this subject see, e.g., Tomlinson, 2003; Belfiore, 2004; Ginsburgh & Throsby,
2006; Gray, 2007, 2010; Menger, 2010). These processes had led to homogenising trends but
also make visible a variety of cultural expressions and identities in conjunction with hybrid
forms of culture (Hall, 1992).
The development of cultural policies was vastly shaped by the implementation of a
neoliberal agenda in post 1970s period – with the election of Margaret Thatcher government in
the United Kingdom and the Ronald Reagan Administration in the United States, and
commonly associated to adoption of privatization, fiscal austerity and deregulation principles
along with the cutting of government spending, the primacy of market-oriented practices and
strengthening of private sector role (see, for example, Jessop, 2002; Peck and Tickell, 2002;
Harvey, 2005; McGuigan, 2005; Leitner et al., 2007).
New understandings about culture and cultural policy are linked to the deconstruction of
the traditional hierarchy between high and popular culture and the extent of the cultural field
beyond the traditional subsidized forms – visual and performing arts, museums and galleries,
and through the inclusion of popular culture practices and, further, of those industries that
combine the creation, production and commercialization of cultural contents (e.g. Santos, 2003;
Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005; O’Connor, 2007; UNDP, 2008; Flew and Cunningham, 2010;
Menger, 2013).
Policymakers around the world have increasingly undertaken an instrumental approach or
market-oriented rationale (e.g. Skot-Hansen, 1998; Belfiore, 2002; Holden, 2004; Gray, 2007;
Johannisson, 2008; Gibson, 2008). In this case, non-cultural arguments were used as reasons to
intervene in cultural field stressing the contribution of culture to other policy areas’ outcomes,
such as economic growth, social inclusion, health, education, participation, and so on.
More, in a competitive global framework, there is a growing interdependence between
culture and economy. This relationship, classically seen as opposite, derives from the increasing
economic valorisation and commodification of goods and services with aesthetic or semiotic
12
attributes, and, in turn, the assumption that economic processes and activities became more
“culturalised” (e.g. Lash and Urry, 1994; Baudrillard, 1998 [1970]; Castells, 1996).
This period was characterised by a reduction or reorientation of state intervention, justified
by the need of cutting public spending, the introduction of a managerial logic, with a focus on
resource efficiency for accountability and based on evidence-based assessment; as well as
decentralization or devolution of cultural responsibilities to lower levels of government, along
with a greater involvement of non-governmental actors in the management and sponsorship of
cultural affairs.
In the sequence of the critical thinking about industrial reproduction techniques for massive
dissemination of cultural works, the developments in communication and broadcasting media,
and the debate around the transformation of cultural goods into commodities, contingent to
supply rules and market demand, the term “industry” became associated to culture. The
expression “cultural industry” developed by theorists of the Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno
and Max Horkheimer in the essay “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”
(1944)7, gave rise to the notion of “cultural industries”8 in the early 1980s in order to overcome
the criticisms of the original term and describe the diversity arrangements and labour markets
in production and distribution industries of symbolic forms – especially in film, television, radio
and publishing. The same is part of the debate on the liberalization of public service
broadcasting, and the control of production and distribution circuits by a few large companies,
and regional and international agreements on trade on cultural products (Miège et al., 1984;
Garnham, 1987, 2005; Cunningham, 2002; Hesmondhalgh, 2002, 2005; Hesmondhalgh and
Pratt, 2005; Galloway and Dunlop, 2007; O’Connor, 2007).
This discussion gained prominence with cultural industries policy initiatives of UNESCO,
namely with the publication of the report “Cultural industries: a challenge for the future”
(UNESCO, 1982a), the working documents of the Council of Europe and the research work of
Grenoble School directed by Bernard Miège, that supported the French cultural policy of the
early 1980s (Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Garnham, 2005; Galloway and Dunlop, 2007). At European
level, the Commission has also published several documents that became relevant in the design
7
The term “cultural industry” has been first used by these authors to replace the expression “mass
culture” used in previous studies and to explain the industrial character that culture acquired due to
technical changes and subjection of culture to the principle of commodification.
8
The term “cultural industries” has been discussed in a vast literature (for example, Tremblay, 1990;
O’Connor, 2000, 2007; Towse, 2000; Flew, 2002; Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Galloway and Dunlop,
2007; Garnham, 2005; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005; and numerous others).
13
of funding programs, such as the Green Paper “Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative
industries” (EC, 2010a), as well as the Parliament with the “Resolution on the role of culture in
the development of European regions” (EP, 2009) or the “Resolution on cultural industries in
Europe” (EP, 2008).
From then on, cultural policy rationales started to reflect a new understanding of the
relationship between culture and economics, in connection with industrial and economic policy.
Beyond traditional arts subsidy policies, European governments increasingly identified cultural
industries as core domain of cultural policy and applied protectionist policies and regulatory
mechanisms to safeguard local expressions and corporations confronted with cultural
homogenisation trends.9
In the 1990s the term “creative industries” have gained popularity with the political program
of the British Labour Government in the context of the emergence of a “knowledge economy”
where intangible assets such as creativity have become determining factors of competitiveness
(Garnham, 2005; Galloway and Dunlop, 2007). Some governments followed the British model
of creative industries in terms of definition and policy orientation but others opted by cultural
industries concept.
Despite the terminological preference, the promotion of cultural and creative industries has
become a core component of cultural policy, in the context of the emergence of the so-called
cultural or creative economy specially in urban development field, as I will discuss latter.
However, the shift to a discourse oriented to cultural and creative sector reveals a constant
tension between commercial and industrial logics and elitist and protectionist approaches, but
also between the characteristics of artistic work and careers and the nature of cultural/creative
labour market (see, for example, Primorac, 2006; Oakley, 2009).
The evolution and characteristics of the cultural policy subsystem is also pertinent in the
cultural policies development as described below.
a. Cultural policy models in Europe
In addition to the discussion of the logics of cultural policy, is commonly distinguished two
main approaches in comparative cultural policy literature. They are identified as a reference in
9
The idea of implement measures protecting national cultural industries – under “cultural exception”,
and subsequently “cultural diversity” arguments were developed in the context of international trade
negotiations and agreements conducted by international bodies as the GATT, WTO or UNESCO.
14
the institutionalisation of cultural policy in Western European countries10. In the first place, the
French approach or Continental model, usually characterised by a long tradition of direct state
intervention and the establishment, in July 1959, of a Ministry specifically dedicated to cultural
affairs. The design of cultural public policies aspired to strengthen national identity values
through the development of large-scale cultural institutions and the support of artists and
creators as ambassadors of national culture. Later, in the 1980s, under the same rationale, but
taking a broader definition of culture and expanding the activities eligible for cultural support,
they created a strong regulatory action to encourage domestic production and the expansion of
the media sector. Hence, the preservation of cultural specificity becomes a central axis in their
cultural policy (e.g. CoE, 1954; Dubois, 1999; European Commission, 2000; 2016).
On the other hand, the British approach founded on the “arm’s length principle” and usually
described as a system with limit interference of State, the existence of independent or quasiautonomous agencies to manage public subsidies – that begin with the establishment of the Arts
Council of Great Britain in 1945; and the peer assessment decision making processes (c.f.
Madden, 2009). Afterwards, culture became more accessible to the intervention of civil society
and private actors with special relevance for voluntary organisations (charities), foundations
(trusts) and private sponsors (Gattinger and Saint-Pierre, 2008; Menger et al., 2010). Moreover,
the doctrine neoliberal in public policies with the introduction of the language of economics
and markets and the instrumental use of culture in other policy areas increasingly define the
cultural policies of Anglo-Saxon influence.
Despite these modes of intervention11, that influenced or questioned the design of cultural
policies, each European country developed its own approach according to its historical,
political, economic and cultural peculiarities.
For instance, the type of policy pursued, on the whole, by Nordic countries – Denmark,
Norway, Finland and Sweden, which share a broad range of features, intensify by ample
cooperation particularly through the Nordic Culture Fund (established in 1966) is also referred
10
National patterns can be defined as “cultural policy regimes”. They reflect the historical, political
and institutional configurations of each country and describes its cultural field, to be more precise
“their socio-economic structure, their internal hierarchies and the conceptions of art and culture that
prevail within them” (Dubois, 2013: 1).
11
Other well-known typologies in cultural policy were developed, for example, by Cummings and
Katz (1987) that distinguished four main administrative models: Patron; Market manipulator;
Regulator; and Impresario. In turn, Chartrand and McCaughey (1989) defined four alternative
modes of state intervention: Facilitator, Patron, Architect, and Engineer.
15
as a particular case. Cultural policy, as part of the welfare system, had as main objectives to
ensure both individual liberty and equal access to culture (Duelund, 2003, 2004; Heikkinen,
2003; Mangset et al., 2008). In general, and despite the recurrent debate around cultural
economics and State’s role in the cultural field, there has always been some resistance to the
influence of market forces with the intention of ensuring greater cultural diversity and artistic
freedom (Duelund, 2008). Accordingly, the State has always directly supported individual
artists, as well as artistic production and distribution in comparison with other countries, such
as the UK, which is more concerned with the protection of producers' rights (Duelund, 2004,
2003).
Widely disseminated was the idea of an “experience economy” introduced by Pine and
Gilmore (1998) and developed by several Nordic authors (e.g. Pine and Gilmore, 1999; Marling
et al., 2009; Lorentzen, 2009; Smidt-Jensen et al., 2009; Sørensen et al., 2010; Bille, 2012).
This new categorisation emphasises the practice of consumers that invoke subjective reactions,
instead of focusing on the production side (Nielsén, 2004; Power, 2009). In this vein, Nordic
cultural policy model that is known by its tradition in make partnerships between public cultural
institutions and civil society is been pursued to establish new public-private enterprises in the
service of the experience economy. In general, national governments adopted an instrumental
logic in defining cultural policy, using economic arguments and evaluations to intervene in the
cultural sphere. National strategies, such as in the Finnish case, increasingly emphasise the
importance of placing culture and creativity at the centre of areas such as well-being, innovation
and trade policy. Besides, there is renewed attention to reinforce the principles of democracy
by introducing a participatory culture agenda by increasing the involvement of users in public
culture and institutions (Fischer, 2006; Krivý and Kaminer, 2013; Tomka, 2013; Sørensen et
al., 2016; Virolainen, 2016).
Given the case studies under investigation, in this section, we also highlight the specific
characteristics of the intervention that marked the development of cultural policies in the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe as well as in Southern Europe.12
After the fall of Communism, the trajectory of East-Central Europe countries of the Warsaw
Pact is marked by profound transformations from totalitarian political systems and centrally
planned economy to a market-oriented economy and pluralistic political systems.
12
F.G. Castles refers to these “family policy” to describe “policy similarities between groups and their
differences from other groups” in consequence of the history and culture (Castles, 1993: xv).
16
Notwithstanding some national distinctions, until then the state was the principal financier and
provider of public services. These post-communist countries – Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia – begun a transition process in the
stream of modernization and gradual proximity to other EU countries13, conducting reforms in
political and economic system, but also in culture and societal values and structures, with some
gradations in terms of scope, rapidity and outcomes (Balcerowicz, 2002; Bozóki et al., 2014;
Potŭček, 2009). The core values of democracy, secularism and individualism are increasingly
incorporated but, in general, still persists lower levels of political participation and social trust
(Bozóki et al., 2014).
In the development of cultural policy also can be identified common trends in these
transition countries. Starting from an ideological hegemony framework, under the control of
the central state and political propaganda objectives, they initiated efforts to improve the
autonomy of culture. Besides, they launched administrative reforms and legislation for cultural
sector, promoted the delegation of powers to decentralised local agencies and the privatisation
of cultural infrastructure, as well as, the introduction of market models for the development of
culture, even if central governments maintain an interventionist role in the field (Şuteu, 2002;
Katunarić, 2003; Švob-Đokić and Obuljen, 2003; 2005a, 2005b; Švob-Đokić, 2006;
Ratzenböck et al., 2012). New financing mechanisms have been explored as well as the
development of intercultural activities and cooperation through EU programs (e.g., Culture
2000) and regional bodies and programs. The affirmation of national identity symbols, the
promotion of the countries' image externally, the preservation of heritage and support of the
tourism economy has been common issues covered in cultural policy in these states.
In the context of European politics, some authors also refer to the socio-political and
cultural specificity of the Southern European countries (Ferrera, 1996; Pedaliu, 2010; Rhodes,
1996; Torcal and Magalhães, 2009). Notwithstanding the controversy generated by the range
of situations that this aggregation comprises, it tries to describe common political-economic
developments in Portugal, Spain, Italy14, Greece, and which diverge in some way from the
continental model and northern Protestant countries. The development path of these countries
is marked by some historical particularities, such as the late industrialisation, the subsequent
transformation of an agriculture base in a service economy, the search for consolidation of the
13
14
These countries became EU Member States in May 2004.
Usually Italy is inclued in this group despite the industrialized north part of the country (Pedaliu
2010; Torcal and Magalhães 2009).
17
democracy and institutional modernisation after times of authoritarianism. This affiliation has
gained special attention with the accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain to the ECC, and
analysis of the structural difficulties of the entitled “semi-peripheral” countries (originally by
Arrighi, 1985; 1985, 1979). A distrust regarding political institutions characterises usually the
political culture of democracy in Southern Europe, besides the low levels of social confidence
and the reduced participation of citizens and the persistence of clientelism practises (Andreotti
et al., 2001; Rhodes, 1996; Torcal and Magalhães, 2009). These attributes are necessarily
revealed in the governance of culture and included in the challenges to overcome through
cultural initiatives. The state remains the central figure in terms of cultural policy with greater
responsibility in the preservation and protection of national heritage, even in the most
decentralised states (as in Spain). However, local authorities have a crucial role in the provision
of services cultural and supporting cultural activities.
Looking more closely to the case of Portugal, during much of the twentieth century, the
existent dictatorial political regime carried out a centralised cultural policy, controlling artistic
expressions and cultural activities and supporting the dissemination of certain aesthetic and
ideological values. After this period, cultural policies, strongly influenced by the French model,
came to be seen as a path for democratisation and affirmation of national identity, with a
primary focus on support for the artistic creation and heritage conservation.
The accession of Portugal to the EEC in 1986 and the access to structural funds has favoured
the socioeconomic restructuration of the country. Important public investments were made in
the cultural field, under the second Community Support Framework (1994-1999), mainly in the
recovery and improvement of the historical and cultural heritage, primarily for national
monuments and museums, and to increase the access to cultural goods. As part of a
democratisation strategy of cultural production sphere, it was established a national network of
libraries, museums and archives and theatres (Silva, 2004; 2007; Klamer et al., 2010; Gomes
and Martinho, 2012; Pinto, 2012; Silva et al., 2013). Along this time, the management of
cultural affairs was made primary by the Portuguese government, although some power
devolution was attempted through the establishment of partnerships between central and local
government and allocating more responsibilities to municipalities (Silva, 2007; Silva et al.,
2013). In addition to more widespread access to cultural goods and diversified events –
encouraged mostly by local authorities, whose cultural budget expanded substantially, and with
the aid of local associations – the political discourse incorporated, gradually, a broad conception
of culture and the discussion about the cultural economy in the decision-making and
18
legitimatisation processes. These improvements will be developed in the analysis of the
Portuguese case study.
Thus, as noted above, European cultural policies followed different directions in various
European states. However, in the period of institutionalisation of cultural field, there was a
general trend to create infrastructures and support cultural institutions to extend the cultural
offer according to the principles of cultural democracy. This support was delivered, most of the
times, through direct forms of financing, namely the public budgets attributed to national
institutions controlled by the State, or through grants to individual artists or non-profit arts
organisations. There were also indirect ways, such as social security benefits paid to artists,
support for private companies in the cultural industries, or tax incentives for the patronage of
the arts.
It is important to remember the historical influence of international organisations and
networks that operate in the cultural arena, both in the theoretical field and in policy
formulation. Some of the milestones result of the work of organisations such as UNESCO, the
Council of Europe and the European Union.
For instance, UNESCO was crucial in providing a transnational space for cultural policies
discussion and its institutional practices are recognised as legitimate orientations in the field of
public action (Maurel, 2006; Bustamante Fajardo, 2014; Silva, 2015; UNESCO, 2015). Since
the Round Table Meeting on Cultural Policies (Monaco, 1967) and the subsequent report
“Cultural Policy: A Preliminary Study” (1969), this organisation assumed a chief role in the
development and evaluation of cultural policies around the world.
During the 1970s, UNESCO was prolific producing over 50 studies on national cultural
policies entitled “Studies and Documents on Cultural Policies”. It also organised a series of
intergovernmental meetings that culminated in the second World Conference on Cultural
Policies (Mexico City, 1982) – known as MONDIACULT, that helped to define culture as a
category of international intervention.
Since then, UNESCO has introduced different concepts such as multiculturalism, cultural
diversity, cultural rights or sustainable development in the public discussion. Particularly
meaningful to the configuration of cultural policies, was the edition of the report “Our Creative
Diversity”15, by the World Commission for Culture and Development (WCCD, 1995), that
presented the concept of “cultural diversity” as a global public good. As the subsequent
UNESCO World Reports, it motivated international reflection about cultural differences
15
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001055/105586e.pdf
19
between people and the demands of globalisation on cultural diversity and provided knowledge
for public policies. Later, this concept was consolidated through the adoption of the “Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity” (2001)16 and the “Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions” (2005). These documents were adopted by
the Member States of UNESCO, building legal instruments related to these issues. In this
framework “culture refers both to the creative diversity embodied in particular ‘cultures’ and
to the creative impulse at the heart of that diversity of ‘cultures’” (UNESCO, 2009).
Also essential was the launching in 1985 by the Council of Europe of a national cultural
policy review project. This project gave rise in 1998 to the production of the “Compendium
Cultural Policies in Europe” (in partnership with the ERICarts) and to the development of
transversal or sectorial reviews that investigate specific cultural policy issues or sectors. Despite
the complexity inherent to the data collection and analysis in diverse countries, the information
revealed have contributed to a better knowledge about decision-making and administration of
cultural policy (Myerscough 1997; Gordon and Mundy 2001; Mitchell 2002; Kleberg 2016)17.
Despite that European Union had not legal competences to intervene directly in cultural
affairs, culture was intrinsic to the strategy of construction of the European political project and
the promotion of “European identity” including of bringing Europe “closer to the people”
(Bennett, 2001; Littoz-Monnet, 2010; Mitchell, 2002; Mokre, 2006; 2013, 2006, 1993;
Tindemans, 1976). Since the 1970s, the main EEC bodies - the European Parliament and the
European Commission - affirmed the need of assuming a more explicit action in cultural field
to complement legal and economic integration.18 Some emblematic initiatives were launched
16
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf
For additional information see http://www.coe.int/culture/
18
See the “Declaration on European Identity” (Copenhagen, 1973) and the “Tindemans Report”
(1976). Some of the early policy documents on culture are following the resolutions of European
Parliament: (i) 13 May 1974 on the protection of the European cultural heritage (OJ C 62,
30.5.1974); (ii) 14 September 1982 on the protection of the architectural and archaeological heritage
(OJ C 267, 11.10.1982); (iii) 28 October 1988 on the conservation of the Community's architectural
and archaeological heritage (OJ C 309, 5.12.1988); and (iv) 12 February 1993 on preserving the
architectural heritage and protecting cultural assets (OJ C 72, 15.3.1993). The EU Commission also
published two Communications that are considered landmarks in the development of the EU
cultural policy: Commission communication to the Council COM (77) 560 final, 2 December 1977.
Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 6/77) and “Stronger Community action in the
cultural sector”, Communication to Parliament and the Council COM (82) 590 final, 16 October
1982.
17
20
to foster a common sense of belonging such as the “European City of Culture” (an
intergovernmental action established in 1983 and started in 1985), European prizes in diverse
areas, a new ritual calendar, besides the restoration and preservation initiatives of monuments
and sites, among other prestigious initiatives (European Commission, 1992; Sassatelli, 2009;
Shore, 2006).
The “Treaty on European Union”, signed in 1992 in Maastricht, includes officially for the
first time an article devoted to culture as a European competence19 under the subsidiarity
principle20. This item addresses to each Member States the competencies for developing
national, regional and local cultural policy and gives to the EU predominantly the role of funds’
allocation through its programmes. After that, and according to some authors, the logic of EU
cultural policies started to emphasise the principle of “unity in diversity”, the promotion of a
common cultural heritage structured in the diversity and dialogue between national cultures
(Delanty, 2002; Sassatelli, 2009; Shore, 2006). That article became the legal basis for the design
of specific community programmes21. Major goals in this respect have been the promotion of
cultural exchanges, mobility of creative artists, and the creation of long-term networks, as well
as the development of innovative methods of expression and working (Sievers and Wingert
2012, apud Bruell, 2013).
The 2007 Lisbon Treaty marked the beginning of a consistent EU cultural policy with the
active participation of private stakeholders. The signing of the agreement was followed by the
“Communication on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing world” (EC, 2007a) and the
respective Council resolution, which symbolises the EU's direct involvement with culture,
although it has not defined effective cultural policies. It is commonly recognised as the first
strategic document that clearly expresses the EU objectives for the sector and its integration
with other policies, namely:
19
The article 128 defines that “the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the
Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing
the common heritage to the fore” in “Treaty on the European Union”, Official Journal C 191, 29
July 1992. This article was reiterated as article 151 in the “Amsterdam Treaty” (1997), and recently
confirmed in the article 167 after the “Lisbon Treaty” (2007).
20
About this principle in EU law see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.2.2.pdf
21
For an inventory of EU programmes and policies see, e.g., the EC staff working paper “Inventory of
Community actions in the field of culture”. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/2/2007/EN/2-2007-570-EN-1-0.Pdf
21
the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue; the promotion of culture
as a catalyst for creativity in the framework of the Lisbon strategy for growth,
employment, innovation and competitiveness; and the promotion of culture as a vital
element in the Union's international relations.22
The Lisbon Agenda proposed the application of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC)23
that became the main process for defining the European Union's work plans for culture, since
2008, in the discussion of policy priorities and in the definition of the recommendations to
intervene in the field. In fact, the effects of these work plans are mainly at the level of
development of knowledge and exchange of experiences “rather than any far-reaching effects
on key national policy issues and improved policy making at national and EU levels” given the
high degree of subsidiarity (ECORYS, 2013: 50).
Since 1989, the European Structural Funds contributed extensively to support several
cultural projects that range from the preservation of heritage, the creation of infrastructures and
services, the fostering of the local attractiveness and urban regeneration processes to the
promotion of cultural and creative industries. These interventions are shaped by the logic of the
policy framework to which they belong24 and conditioned by the actors’ capacity to established
networks and fulfil the programs requirements and efficiency of the national systems (EP, 2012;
KEA European Affairs, 2012). In this sense, the EU cultural approach is frequently understood
as instrumental, concerning in achieving results in other public policy areas, covering from
innovation and social inclusion to economic growth and external relations policies.
Thus, the early concerns of EU intervention in the field of culture were related above all
with the protection of European cultural production, preservation of the cultural heritage and
the strengthening of European citizenship and identity in the face of global challenges and
building the European project. More recently, given the economic potential of the cultural and
22
“Resolution of the Council of 16 November 2007 on a European Agenda for Culture”. Official
Journal of the European Union (2007/C 287/01). Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:287:0001:0004:EN:PDF
23
The OMC is a “governance mechanism for transnational coordination in European Union (EU)
policy-making” (Borrás and Radaelli 2015: 129) that institutionalised “novel forms of consultation,
participation, and representation” (Barnett, 2001). It establishes a working method to set up OMC
Working Groups composed by experts of the Member States to carry out studies and reports to the
EC.
24
The cultural sector has benefited of the Structural Funds programs INTERREG, LEADER, EQUAL
and URBAN to contribute to sustainable development and reduce imbalances between the regions.
22
creative sector in Europe, it has become a priority area in cultural policy programs and in other
areas of EU policy, as indicated by the replacement of the Culture Program with the Creative
Europe Program.25 This new funding instrument for the period 2014–2020 aims to foster the
capacity of the cultural and creative sectors to the Europe 2020 strategic objectives of promoting
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EC, 2011b).
Summing up, since the recognition of the field of culture as public policy, new justifications
and instruments have accompanied the emergence of new institutions of governance, especially
as a result of structural changes, but also of the actions of political actors and their ideas, values
and interests, expressed in political discourses (Gray, 2007, 2009; Barbieri, 2012). Alongside,
the on-going democratization of culture and cultural democracy rationales, cultural policies
began to incorporate new management models under an economic and neoliberal logic. This
change is explained by Clive Gray (2009, 2007) by the expectations and pressures of
commodification of politics and the structural weakness of the cultural policy sector.
The path taken by democratic European countries to manage their national cultural policies
is built on narratives and representations, influenced by the interactions of the actors involved
and by more comprehensive ongoing changes, such as the digital revolution, as well as by
various discussions and resolutions of international and non-governmental organisations.
b. The value of culture
To talk about the different conceptions of culture is also to review the values that are
assigned to them and how these values are produced socially. This debate has gained special
prominence with the growing interdependence between culture and economic realm. Although
this discussion involves distinct and controversial aspects, it also can be useful to clarify how
culture has been understood in the public domain but also in contemporary cultural production
and consumption practices.
Moreover, considerable literature distinguishes between intrinsic and instrumental value.
The intrinsic value of culture is often associated with ideas of subjective and aesthetic
experience (Holden, 2004, 2006) and to the generation of inherent benefits enhancing individual
lives but also promoting spill-over effects to the wider society (Holden and Baltà, 2012;
25
The creative and cultural industries with revenues of €535.9 billion, contribute to 4.2% of Europe’s
GDP and employ nearly 7 million workers, are seen as central to Europe’s economy and
competitiveness (Ernst & Young, 2014).
23
McCarthy et al., 2004).26 More, the intrinsic value of culture comprises the diversity of
collective ways of life.
The difficulty of finding a language capable of translating the nature of individual
experience or the benefits of the enjoyment of art and culture makes that their intrinsic value
neglected or used in an unclear way. Despite that cultural expressions have “value in their own
right”, it is possible to point out some significant contributions of culture that come precisely
from people’s experiences. For instance, the development of the individual capacity to
innovative and creative practices; the involvement of citizens in cultural activities for the
revitalisation and cohesion of communities and neighbourhoods; therapeutic effects for
personal health; etc. Thus, beyond the private value, culture in intrinsic terms have valuable
public repercussions.
In turn, “instrumentalism” has become embedded in discourses about culture trying to find
ways to capture and describe the value of culture for policy appraisal and resource allocation,
employing a range of instrumental arguments, such as education, crime reduction, economic
growth, etc. An attempt to go further in value evaluation is based on the development of public
value theory in the USA in the 1990s which had a great influence in the reforms of the New
Labour government in the 2000s (Coats and Passmore, 2008; Talbot, 2008)27. In general, it tries
to find ways to engage the public and deliver services and to measure the performance and
benefits of arts and cultural organisations in order to mobilise public legitimacy and support
investment. This approach was taken by many cultural institutions to respond to the production
of evidence directives, at the same time, that recognises their own institutional goals (Crossick
and Kaszynska, 2016; O’Brien, 2010).
Therefore, acknowledgement of culture benefits or positive externalities, is today a key
feature of cultural policy in western countries. Many of those involved in the public policy
26
Some philosophers such as John O’Neill (1992) and Shelly Kagan (1998) discussed about the senses
in which the term “intrinsic value” is used. In general, they distinguished the intrinsic value as a
synonym for non-instrumental value, i.e. the value that has “in itself.”. This value is apart from any
instrumental usefulness for human purposes and it is independent of all other objects. It also refers
to the value that an object has for “their own sake” in virtue of its relational features, such as
uniqueness (Kagan 1992: 184) or rarity (O’Neill, 1992: 124).
27
It is commolly mentioned the work of Mark H. Moore in “Creating Public Value: Strategic
Management in Government” where he defines public value as “the difference between aiming for
an arbitrarily defined performance target to give the appearance of accountability and performance,
and developing a shared understanding of the important values that citizens, taxpayers and clients
want to see achieved by and reflected in the operations of government” (Moore, 1995).
24
defended increasingly economic conceptions to guide implicitly or explicitly public action
regarding culture, assuming that economic prosperity goal should surpass life-enhancing
qualities of art and culture. Taking this logic to the extreme, cultural policy is understood just
a means to a non-cultural end in the sense of a simple subject to the impositions of other political
actors and intentions of other sectors (Holden, 2006, 2004; Selwood, 2002). Therefore, the
importance of culture as a tool to achieve other broad policy objectives is promoted using
measurement systems based on quantitative data and evidence that are often considered
inadequate due to its inability to adequately translate the value of culture (e.g. Holden, 2004,
2006, 2015a; Gray, 2007; O’Brien, 2010; Allan et al., 2013; Carnwath and Brown, 2014; Dodd
et al., 2014). A merely instrumental view has also implications in the processes of public
financing and increases its vulnerability to exogenous pressures, and on the other hand, it does
not show the specificities of the sector (Gibson, 2008). As John Holden argues, cultural
activities goals are “often expressed in terms of efficiency, cost-per-user and audience diversity,
rather than discussed in terms of cultural achievement” (Holden 2004: 14).28
For some researchers, the discussion about the intrinsic/instrumental value of the cultural
policy that has been much debated in the last decades is too simplistic, since all policies are
instrumental in achieving specific ends (Gibson, 2008; Hadley and Gray, 2017). As Eleonora
Belfiore and Oliver Bennett concluded: “‘Instrumentalism’ is, as a matter of fact, 2500 years
old... The arts have been used as a tool to enforce and express power in social relations for as
long as the arts themselves have been around” (Belfiore and Bennett, 2007: 140).
Parallel to this discussion, there is also readings that examined the hierarchies in the cultural
field and legitimisation processes around cultural production and market relations. The blur of
the opposition between high and popular and mass media culture, goes beyond a romantic and
elitist conception of culture, which led to the legitimisation of a variety of popular and marginal
forms, and mass-mediated culture (see, for example, Costa, 2002).
The intensification of the relationship economy-culture is widely recognisable in the broad
range of economic activities that are involved in the production and marketing of goods and
services whose aesthetic or semiotic attributes overlap the utility functions (Lash and Urry
1994; Molotch 1996; Baudrillard 1998 [1970]). The sign-value became ubiquitous in our lives
and an essential component of commodity production and consumption, transcending the
exchange value and use value of goods and services (Jameson, 1984; Baudrillard, 1998 [1970]).
Furthermore, the cultural realm has become more commodified. Most cultural products are
28
This discussion will be also taken in methodological chapter.
25
provided by for-profit institutions in decentralised markets, for a growing number of consumers
who benefit from the increase in available income and the expansion of free time in modern
society.
In this framework, the notion of “cultural value” has been especially used in the cultural
economics literature and tries to capture the essential characteristics of culture and, at the same
time, proposes a framework for assessing its economic aspects. Instead of deliberating about
the intrinsic and instrumental values, authors like David Throsby evaluated the connexion
between cultural and economic principles. For him, the cultural value (inherent in cultural
goods and services as part of a cultural capital29) encompasses the aesthetic, spiritual, social,
historical, symbolic and authentic components of culture, and the economic value derives both
from market transactions and from non-market sources (Allan et al., 2013; Throsby, 1999, 2001,
2003; 2010). In a posterior work, Throsby included an additional feature: the locational value,
when “cultural significance attaches to the physical or geographical location of a heritage item”
(Throsby, 2010: 113). Furthermore, he distinguished between tangible and intangible forms of
cultural capital. The first form exists in “art-works and artefacts such as paintings and
sculptures, and heritage buildings, locations and sites” and, the second one consists of “artworks
which exist in their pure form as public goods, such as music and literature, and the stock of
inherited traditions, values, beliefs and so on which constitute the ‘culture’ of a group”
(Throsby, 1999: 167–168). Besides, the stock of cultural capital produces flows of capital
services which can be consumed directly, or which may be combined with other factors of
production to produce further goods and services that have both economic and cultural value
(Throsby, 1999).
In turn, John Holden and other authors involved in DEMOS essays30 proposed to consider
the institutional value of culture to capture the way that cultural institutions act about their
mission and their publics, and how they contribute to a more effective role of culture in society
(Hewison, 2006; Holden, 2004, 2006, 2015a; Holden and Baltà, 2012). They join the
instrumental, intrinsic and institutional values in an equilateral triangle model to which
correspond divergent interests and expectations from the politicians and policy-makers,
professionals and the public (2006a, 2004). The institutional value is express in the capacity of
29
A broadest use of the “cultural capital” term is in sociology and cultural studies following Bourdieu,
who identifies individuals as possessing cultural capital if they have acquired competence in
society’s high-status culture (Mahar et al., 1990).
30
Demos is Britain's think-tank.
26
foster engagement between cultural organisations and the public; on providing a service of
quality and interest, and finally in generating a sense of trust between the organisation and its
stakeholders, becoming a symbol of a collective identity and local distinctiveness (Hewison,
2006).
These different categories of value, exposed here, are just a few of the most mentioned in
the literature. From the personal enjoyment and development to the wider effects on all society
and in public domain, the different types can be seen as complementary and not exclusive
(Costa, 2015; Holden, 2006, 2015b). The language of cultural value gives us the opportunity to
consider culture as something more than a system of shared meanings and behaviours to
emphasise the value that different stakeholders and their interests draw in policy-making.
c. From art and cultural activities to cultural and creative industries
In addition to value judgment analysis, it is important to note that culture has been
increasingly subject to an economic or industrial interpretation, especially for economic
development reasons. This approach involves the perception of culture as a product,
commodity, subject to an economic process of production, distribution and consumption (Melo,
1994). As also regarded by the UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics, the “common set
of economic and social activities that are traditionally recognised to be cultural”, essentially,
“embody or convey cultural expressions” and “are involved in the production and distribution
of cultural goods or services with high aesthetic and semiotic attributes” (UNESCO-UIS, 2009)
David Throsby, in his book “Economics and Culture” (2001) defined cultural activities as
those “undertaken by people and the product of those activities, which have to do with the
intellectual, moral and artistic aspects of human life”. In this sense, culture is linked to activities
that are based on “enlightenment and education of the mind rather than the acquisition of purely
technical or vocational skills” (Throsby, 2001: 4). Then, the author described three
characteristics of such “cultural activities or products”, which are related to:
1) some form of creative work;
2) creation and communication through symbols;
3) some aspect of intellectual property rights (e.g., copyright, industrial design rights)
(Throsby, 2001).
Pedro Costa established a typology of the cultural activities with implicit implications for
the development of territories built on four large and interpenetrated categories (Costa, 1999,
2002):
27
1) The “core” of cultural industries – audio-visual and cinema; book and record edition;
and increasingly, those activities borders on ICT, and the entertainment and leisure
industries in general.
2) “Cultivated”, “institutional”, “legitimated” culture – generally associated with
“erudite” or “high” culture (most of the performing arts – mainly in the fields of opera,
dance, classical music and theatre – and visual arts – big museums and galleries, etc.),
matching with the core of traditional and conventional cultural politics.
3) Popular culture, based on urban forms of sociability – primarily concerned with some
form of expression of popular culture, but also more independent or marginal
movements to the established “high culture” mass culture industries.
4) Preserving and increasing the worth of a particular cultural heritage and identity – all
memory spaces and registers – from images and sounds to monuments, handicrafts,
gastronomy, etc.
Given the technological advances and the growth of global trade and distribution of cultural
products - which comprise goods and services - is inevitable here to understand those activities
that are related to the cultural and creative industries and that gained particular prominence in
academic and policy literature. Numerous conceptual and methodological approaches are
followed to delimit the field and that helps us to question the distinctive characteristics of
cultural activities (see, among many others, the contributions of UNESCO, 1982a; 2000; Scott,
1997, 2004, Pratt, 1997, 2007, 2008; Eurostat, 2000; KEA, 2006, 2009; Gordon and BeilbyOrrin, 2007; O’Connor, 2007; UNDP, 2008; UNESCO-UIS, 2012; UNESCO and UNDP,
2013).
Historically, the association of a notion of industry with culture begins with the concept of
“cultural industry” coined by the social theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in the
essay “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” (Adorno and Horkheimer,
1979 [1944]). Originally used in a critical sense, as a result of the commodification of culture
under capitalism and the production of cultural goods on an industrial mass scale, the term was
revised shifting to “cultural industries”. The change was due to the pejorative connotation and
the inability to translate the complexity and the diversity of forms that coexist in cultural
production in modern life, in consequence of technological innovations (e.g. Hesmondhalgh,
2002; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005). A group of French researchers headed this approach
presented in the book “Capitalism and cultural industries” (Huet et al., 1978) in the context of
28
the protectionist French national cultural policy31. This viewpoint was followed by other
scholars and policy-makers as well as policy initiatives from UNESCO and the Council of
Europe since the 1970s, and other international organisations associated with the growing
recognition of the potential economic and cultural value of the cultural industries (Cunningham,
2002; Garnham, 1987; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005; 2010, 2007; Segers and Huijgh, 2007).
The “cultural industries” have been defined in diverse ways and can be associated with
broader approaches to culture and cultural policy (as I noted previously) as well as certain local
development policies. For example, Nicholas Garnham in a document to the Greater London
Council elected it as a “descriptive term” to refer the “industrial corporations” involved in
“producing and disseminating symbols in the form of cultural goods and services” (Garnham,
1990: 156). Otherwise, Ruth Towse proposed that those industries should be related to “massproduce goods and services with sufficient artistic content to be considered creative and
culturally significant. The essential features are industrial-scale production combined with
cultural content” (Towse, 2003: 170).
A more operational definition is present by David Throsby (2001) which incorporated both
the economic and cultural sides of the cultural industries. According to the author, these
activities 1) involve some form of creativity in their production; 2) are concerned with the
generation and communication of symbolic meaning; and 3) their output embodies, potentially,
at least some form of intellectual property.
In the 1990s, the term “creative industries” emerged as a comprehensive concept that seeks
to describe the conceptual and practical convergence of the creative arts (individual talent) with
cultural industries (mass scale), in the context of new media technologies and within the socalled knowledge economy, for the use of interactive citizen-consumers (Hartley, 2005).
According to David Hartley, the notion of “cultural industries” was unable “to combine art and
31
Some authors stand out with the contributions that developed for cultural industries theory, such as
Mattelart (1979); Bernard Miège. (1979; 1987; 1989); Auguste Girard (1972; 1978; 1982); Patrice
Flichy (1980), among others. Also worth mentioning in this initial period the contributions to the
construction of the theory of cultural industries, for instance, the work of Jean-Guy Lacroix (1986)
and Tremblay Gaëtan (1990; 1997) in Canada; Enrique Bustamante (1988, 2004) and Ramon Zallo
(1988) in Spain; Nicholas Garnham (1990), Andy Pratt (1997), Allen Scott, (1996; 1999; 2000) and
David Hesmondhalgh (1996; 2002) in UK; Dominic Power (2002) in Nordic countries; and the
seminal work of Maria de Lourdes Lima dos Santos (1985) in Portugal; among numerous
contributions around the world.
29
culture, culture and creativity. It failed to take advantage of social, technological, and cultural
changes” (Hartley, 2005: 14).
The creative industries policy approach was generated in the framework of Australia
Creative Nation policy in 199432 that sought to stimulate cultural activities – including both
traditional arts and popular culture –, through the emerging digital technologies. But, it was
with the new Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) of the elected British Labour
government33 that the concept was popularised and disseminated over the world carrying on the
belief that these industries generate employment growth and export earnings (Garnham, 2005).
The DCMS was responsible for the renowned “The Creative Industries Mapping Document”
(1998, revised in 2001), produced under the “Creative Industries Task Force” and the
promotional campaign “Cool Britannia” (for a history of the term see, for example,
Cunningham, 2002; Galloway and Dunlop, 2007; Ginsburgh and Throsby, 2006; Glow and
Johanson, 2008; Hesmondhalgh, 2002; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005; O’Connor, 2007). This
was part of the mapping strategy of new competitive areas to economically repositioning the
UK for an increasingly globalised world. The cited report described the sector as “those
industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a
potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual
property” (DCMS, 1998: 3, and 2001). In the mapping exercise, thirteen domains were
considered: advertising, architecture, arts and antique markets, crafts, design, designer fashion,
film, interactive leisure software, music, television and radio, performing arts, publishing and
software.
Afterwards, Stuart D. Cunningham (2002) identifies the main features of the creative
industries model in opposition to the cultural industries:
Here, technological and organisational innovation enables new relationships with
customers and the public that are not reliant on ‘mass’ models of centralized production
(media) and real-time public consumption (the arts). Interactivity, convergence,
customization, collaboration and networks are the key. Creative industries are less
national, and more global and local/regional, than is typical among public broadcasting
systems, flagship arts companies and so on. Their characteristic organisational mode is
the micro-firm to small-to-medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) relating to large established
32
This approach was formulated by Paul Keating’s Government (Australian Prime Minister between
1991–1996), see DCA-Department of Communications and the Arts (1994) Creative Nation:
Commonwealth Cultural Policy, Canberra: AGPS.
33
The “New Labour” government was headed from 1997 to 2007 by Tony Blair.
30
distribution/circulation organisations. And while many creative enterprises remain
identifiably within the arts and media, it is the case that creativity inputs are increasingly
important throughout the services sector. In the same way that enterprises in general
have had to become information intensive, so are they becoming more ‘creativity
intensive’ (Cunningham, 2002: 59).
Other models and methods have been used that reflect different ways of interpreting the
characteristics of these industries (see, for example, UNDP Creative Economy Report 2008 and
the analysis of mapping exercises, also in Higgs and Cunningham, 2008; or, Bakhshi, Freeman,
and Higgs, 2012).
At EU level, the report “The Economy of Culture in Europe” (KEA, 2006) differentiates
three circular groups of activities. The first one comprises what is called “core arts fields”
(visual arts, performing arts and heritage) and the “cultural industries” (media, publishing and
music). The second group is where culture acts essentially as an input into the production of
non-cultural goods and contains the “creative industries and activities” (design, advertising and
architecture). It is still considered a third circle to portray the economic sectors that are “related”
to the activities of the previous circles, such as ICT or tourism.
Later, the “Green Paper - Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries” in the
context of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions defines those industries as follows:
“Cultural industries” are those industries producing and distributing goods or services
which at the time they are developed are considered to have a specific attribute, use or
purpose which embodies or conveys cultural expressions, irrespective of the
commercial value they may have. (…)
“Creative industries” are those industries which use culture as an input and have a
cultural dimension, although their outputs are mainly functional. They include
architecture and design, which integrate creative elements into wider processes, as well
as subsectors such as graphic design, fashion design or advertising (idem).
Recently, the European Commission published a study to map the different creative value
chains of cultural and creative sectors, from creation to consumption, in the digital age
(particularly for visual arts, performing arts, cultural heritage, artistic crafts, book publishing,
music, film, TV, broadcasting and multimedia) (imec-SMIT-VUB et al., 2017).
By the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the benefits of these
activities were widely disseminated and explored in numerous policy-oriented studies and used
to formulate cultural and economic policies. Both expressions are used, sometimes together as
31
“cultural and creative industries” according the context and the objectives. As Garnham
observed they are used as a slogan for “a range of supporting theoretical and political positions”
(Garnham, 2005: 15). And, despite the contradictions and weaknesses, they mobilise a wide
range of interests around the need to intervene politically in this field of activity (idem).
Alongside this debate centred on production and sectoral side, a vast body of the literature
has been devoted to the study of the artists, cultural and creative workers that give voice and
are a critical element of this new cultural economy and overall society34.
From the romantic stereotype of the artist-genius to the idea of creative talent as a source
of ideas and images that are “taken into a wider production context” (Throsby 2001: 113), there
are many differences in nature and cultural work conditions with implications for development
policies.
In general, in the context of public discourse, persists an idealistic notion about the artistic
work, where the self-expression intention overlaps market purposes, which should be supported
by government financing systems or patronage.
However, as part of the transition from traditional industrial systems - characterised by the
mass production of products and services, standardised in rigid organisational frameworks, to
a new productive system - marked by diversity, flexibility, innovation and knowledge, the set
of cultural and creative occupations in the diverse economic sectors received increasing
attention. Creators, artists and cultural workers have been then relocated from a peripheral
position to the centre of social and economic revitalisation and regeneration strategies (Landry,
2000; Florida, 2002, 2005; Peck, 2005; Pratt, 2008). As noted by Elizabeth Currid, they have
transformed “warehouses and blighted neighbourhoods into bohemian enclaves that become
destinations for the well-heeled, simultaneously bringing redevelopment and reinvestment”
(2009: 368). By linking technical and artistic skills, their work is seen as capable of having
positive effects in various sectors of economic activity, as well as promoting social inclusion
and cohesion in the communities to which they belong. It is, especially, emphasise their “ability
to think laterally, to communicate… to challenge traditional solutions and visions” (KEA, 2009:
26). However, many of them contest the enormous responsibilities that are assigned to them in
comparison with the lack of reflection on their social condition. More, even if many noted the
relative freedom and autonomy or even a “bohemian” image (Neff et al., 2005; Ross, 2008),
34
See for example, Becker, 1982; Beckmann, 2001; Greffe, 2002; Markusen and King, 2003; Menger,
2005; Primorac, 2006; Lazzarato, 2007; Ross, 2008; Taylor and Littleton, 2008; Oakley, 2009;
Davies, 2010; Hesmondhalgh and Baker, 2010.
32
their work conditions and careers, in the many forms that they take are markedly challenging
in result of the flexibility of the labour markets of the cultural and creative industries. They are
mostly characterised by uncertainty, precariousness and irregular income, relatively inadequate
social security coverage, multiple job-holding (Beck, 2003; Banks, 2007; Gill and Pratt, 2008;
Hesmondhalgh, 2010; Hesmondhalgh and Baker, 2010, among others). Individual artists and
cultural and creative professionals are increasingly pressured to act as entrepreneurs and to
developed certain skills in networks and project-based work which are balanced by new job
opportunities and a greater visibility of their work.
In academia, a growing body of research has been focusing on studying these workers.
Going back at least to the Peter Drucker’s seminal theories on “knowledgeable workers” (1989)
to Jane Jacobs' writings on geographic clustering of diverse and talented in cities (1961, 1969)
and the many theorists on human capital as Robert Lucas (1988) or Edward Glaeser and his
colleagues (e.g. Glaeser, 2001; Glaeser et al., 2002; Glaeser and Saiz, 2004), there are various
theories that began to look at the importance of attracting a highly-qualified workforce and
skills instead of focusing on the role of companies and industries. The concentration of these
workers can positively affect economic growth in the form of entrepreneurial and creative
dynamism, high levels of innovation and expansion of technology-based sectors.
In recent years, one of the most popular occupational theories among urban planners is the
Richard Florida's creative class (2002; 2003; 2005) in an alternative to the traditional measure
of human capital based on education level (Florida, Mellander, and Stolarick, 2008). This
author proposed that to attract and retain a “creative class” is central to the regional economic
growth and prosperity (Florida, 2005, 2002; Stolarick and Florida, 2006) seeking to understand
how these people make their location decisions. The “creative class” notion includes a group
of professionals in innovative and artistic occupations, from “science and engineering,
architecture and design, education, arts, music and entertainment, whose economic function is
to create new ideas, new technology, and/or new creative content”, but also “the creative
professionals in business and finance, law, healthcare and related fields” (Florida, 2002: 8).
Moreover, as noted before about the definition of cultural and creative industries, the
identification of this workforce is also a complex task. Authors such as Ann Markusen (2010,
2004) emphasised that cultural and creative work involve a range of relationships, ranging from
purely commercial industries to public non-profit sectors and community organisations. Thus,
there is a variety of challenges when we try to understand who these workers are. For example,
there is a significant proportion of volunteers in non-profit organisations as well as artistic and
creative occupations that are second jobs, which are not considered. There are still non33
cultural/creative professionals who are calculated as part of cultural and creative sectors as well
as a set of artistic or creative occupations that do not count because they occur outside these
fields.35
Moreover, digitalisation has profound impacts in this sector not only in the forms of
production, distribution and access to culture but also in the new ways of organisation and work
besides the emergence of a new class of creators, the “users”.
Hence, the displacement of the discourse around the artistic production for the analysis of
the economic sectors of cultural and creative production as well as of the artists for the cultural
and creative occupations, confronts an idealist and restricted notion of culture for a more broad
and instrumental interpretation.
To conclude about the relationship between cultural politics and political culture and as
Frederick F. Ridley claimed “to understand the cultural politics of a country, one must first
understand its political culture. State policies toward the arts are shaped by wider beliefs about
how government ought to be conducted and what it should try to do” (Ridley, 1987: 225 in
Mulcahy, 2006). Moreover, the opposite is also valid. Cultural policies reflect broader
principles of government action, but also on the power relations and social resistance of
different actors and their understanding of the world.
3. Changes in development policy discourse
“Although development has been a constant concern of government policymakers,
economists and other social scientists – and has touched the lives of more people than
ever before – there has been little agreement on what constitutes development, how it is
best measured and how it is best achieved. One reason for this lack of agreement is that
dissatisfaction with the pace and character of economic and social change has instilled
a desire to redefine the aims and measures of development” (UNDP, 1990: 104).
As in the case of the concept of culture, the variety of approaches and theoretical
perspectives over time makes the task of clarifying what is understood as development
extremely difficult. Therefore, considering recent changes in Western societies, we sought to
35
See, for example, UNESCO-UIS (2009): Framework for Cultural Statistics, UIS, Montreal;
ESSNET-Culture (2012), “European Statistical System Network on Culture, Final report”,
Luxemburg.
34
understand how culture has been embraced in the field of development from the main political
discourses and related events. Given that, as Nicolás Barbieri points out, they “are used as
guides to action by defining the concepts and norms to be applied, identifying the problems to
be solved, developing the policy instruments to be used and framing the national policy
discussion within a given policy arena” (Barbieri, 2015: 453).
Particularly, since the end of World War II, development in its modern sense is usually
identified with the economic growth model of industrialised nations of North America and
Europe. In the 1970s, this Western-centric vision focus on economic development benefitting
from industry and science progresses to increase productivity became object of growing
criticism. The development framework has enlarged to incorporate new goals that range from
reducing poverty, inequality and unemployment to human and environmental purposes, in
addition to explicit recognition of the importance of political, social and cultural factors (e.g.
Seers, 1979; Sen, 1988; Pieterse, 1998; Goulet, 2003; Szirmai, 2005; Capello, 2009a; 2010;
Willis, 2011). Further, if the post-war period was characterised by wide economic prosperity in
most advanced industrialised countries, at the end of the 1960s and, even more intensively,
during the 1970s began a phase of economic stagnation and increasing social inequalities.
Events such as the energy crises, the decline of the Fordism model of development and
Keynesian welfare state, along with technological advances, gave rise to greater
decentralization and flexible forms of production; organisation and labour processes; and a
redesign of the welfare policies (e.g. Pierson, 1991; Jessop, 1992; Amin, 1994; Lipietz, 1997;
Rodríguez-Pose, 1998; Burrows and Loader, 2003)36.
Concepts like post-Fordism, post-industrial society, knowledge economy, cognitive
capitalism, or the cognitive-cultural economy were used in a tentative to designate this period.
But independently of the term choose to describe it, it was a time particularly challenging for
the territories. Namely, the exposition of local economies to global forces, the rising of
unemployment in regions suffering from the collapse of manufacturing or traditional industries,
and rescaling state processes. In response, during the 1980s, new ideas and forms of
intervention have emerged supported by a set of innovative initiatives and theoretical
contributions from authors as John Friedmann and Clyde Weaver (1978), Walter B. Stöhr and
D. R. Fraser Taylor (1981), Michael Piore and Charles Sabel (1984), the Research Group
GREMI (Aydalot, 1986), or Allen J. Scott and Michael Storper (e.g. Scott, 1988; Scott and
Storper, 1986).
36
We will develop these transformations latter at urban level.
35
In general, these perspectives focused on the local in relation to global and followed a
territorial orientation, where socio-spatial relations are organised, be it a region, a city or
neighbourhood. As Pedro Costa explained “in the context of the globalisation process, in which
we live, it is widely recognised that the competitiveness of each space relies heavily on its
territoriality” which implies the capacity of these territories to “offer a specific character, to
value their own assets in an economic and social reality that works globally” (Costa 2002a:
102).
In the definition of territories’ competitive advantages, the fundamental role played by local
supply-side factors, beyond the traditional production factors, to explain positive local and
regional development paths (e.g., capital, labour and infrastructures) was progressively
stressed. The mobilisation of local attributes and assets – especially those immaterial and
relational nature – hardly reproduced in other places and with great attractiveness potential
gained prominence, in conjunction with the necessity to improve new mechanisms of
governance and measures – of economic but also sociocultural nature – to stimulate the
interaction and cross-fertilization between actors and sectors. In turn, it was stressed the
importance of attracting externally capital and/or skilled labour to the localities, or even the
access to external knowledge and innovation to guarantee the sustainability of these processes
(about this theme, see for example, the analyses of Coffey and Polèse, 1984; Camagni, 1991,
2008; Nijkamp and Poot, 1998; OECD, 2001a, 2010a; Pike et al., 2006; Capello, 2009b, 2011;
Rowe, 2009; Monteiro et al., 2011).
Local development theories confirmed new understandings around the concept of space,
equivalent to the notion of territory – understood as a diversified and relational category –,
where economic and social relations are shaped. As explained by Roberta Capello the territory
is a system: 1) of localised technological externalities; 2) of local governance around a
community of private actors and local institutions; and 3) founded on economic and social
relations – the relational or social capital that exists in that place (Capello, 2009a).
Thus, as an alternative to a functionalist perspective, the territory became an active subject
of development, understood not only as a base in which economic forces operate and are located
but also a source of distinct social, political, environmental and cultural resources.
In the search for a new model of regional development, and in consequence of the success
associated with some localised clusters of economic activity, diverse academic “territorialised”
approaches have arisen. Under the generic name of “Territorial Innovation Models”, it has
emerged a variety of reflections trying to explain the local innovation capability and
competitiveness of firms and region (Moulaert and Sekia, 2003; Asheim et al., 2006; Lagendijk,
36
2006; Moulaert et al., 2007; Crevoisier, 2014). For example, the analysis on “industrial
districts”, initiated with the seminal papers of Giacomo Becattini (1975, 1990)37 and followed
by the works of authors such as Bagnasco (1977), and Brusco (1980) underlined the innovative
capacity of small scale enterprises in the same or related industrial sector geographically
located.
In the same vein, the studies developed by the GREMI - Groupe de Recherche Européen
sur les Milieux Innovateurs, drew up the concept “milieu innovateur” as a socio-territorial space
that supports collective learning dynamics (Aydalot, 1986; Maillat and Perrin, 1992; Maillat et
al., 1993; Ratti et al., 1997; Crevoisier and Camagni, 2000; Camagni et al., 2004).
Also essential are the contributions around the concept of “cluster” popularised by Michael
Porter stimulated the debate about the importance for innovation process localised in a
geographic area and among a “group of interconnected companies and associated institutions
in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities” (Porter, 1998, 1999, and
2000: 245).
Others scholars opted by the concept of “local and regional innovation systems” to define
which firms and other organisations engaged in interactive and innovation-based learning
economies existing on the local/regional (Asheim and Isaksen, 1997, Asheim and Gertler, 2005;
Cooke, 1998, 2001), or the notion of “learning region”, that reinforces the role of knowledge
and collective learning as specific resources for regional innovation.
In these theory-led development models and policy concepts, the performance of the
territory dependent not only on the creation of an adequate physical infrastructure and labour
market policies but also relied on localised innovation, local specific resources, regional actors’
interaction and collective tacit knowledge capacity. Some researchers argued for the necessity
to consider the specific role of extra-regional networks and institutions such as generation
mechanisms and knowledge circulation (Doloreux, 2004; Hommen and Doloreux, 2004;
Cumbers et al., 2003; Mackinnon et al., 2002; Bunnel and Strain, 2001).
Despite the limits appointed to these models, they provided “a narrative on the intangible
dimension of local economic development and the processes of knowledge circulation and
learning” (Doloreux and Parto, 2004: 7). They can be seen as a theoretical basis for exploration
of particular forms of sub-national intervention.
37
The studies of Becattini retaken the socioeconomic thinking of the English economist Alfred
Marshall (1842-1924).
37
Some studies followed a more cognitive perspective making use of the concept of “capital”
enriching the research and understanding of the processes of change and development. For
instance, some studies focus on the “human capital” (e.g. Becker, 1964; Lucas, 1988; Romer,
1989) and its role in development processes, whereby the presence of educated people and
skilled workers can generate formal and informal knowledge exchange and positive
externalities. In a globalised world marked by the expansion of the knowledge sectors, the
human capital was progressively and in a broad sense regarded as crucial to the economic
growth of cities, regions and countries. Others opted by using the “social capital” notion, in a
variety of ways, but predominantly to emphasise the social ties or relations networks as well as
the shared values and rules in socio-economic performance to construct a learning environment
that fosters human capital (e.g., Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993; Grootaert and van Bastelaer,
2001). In the same vein, some scholars used social and institutional embeddedness38 to explain
the differences in the dynamics of local economies. They tried to analyse how firms and
workers, inserted in formal and informal relations shaped the actors’ action and the creation of
an appropriate environment to drive development (Rodríguez-Pose and Storper, 2006).
On the other hand, the OECD (2001) embraced the concept of “territorial capital”,
subsequently adopted in European policies within the European Territorial Agenda (EC 2007),
to describe the unique combination of local assets and conditions, from natural resources to
physical assets and socio-cultural attributes to be activated in local development strategies.
More, it is also considered that those intangible factors of the territories often stated as
“something in the air” and the “environment” which is a blend of “institutions, rules, practices,
producers, researchers and policymakers that make a certain creativity and innovation possible”
(ibid.). Thus, the “territorial capital” may be seen as the set of localised assets – natural, human,
artificial, organisational, relational and cognitive – that constitute the competitive potential of
a given territory (Camagni, 2008).
This focus on local development approaches is coherent with the reduction of central
governments investment and the processes of decentralisation39 pursued by many developing
countries as part of the structural adjustments in order “to restore markets, create or strengthen
38
Attributed originally to Richard Thurnwald, this was taken by Karl Polanyi and become central in
the new economic sociology by authors such as Mark Granovetter (1985), or later by Sharon Zukin
and Paul DiMaggio (1990).
39
Decentralisation may take various forms. Robertson Work for UNDP distinguished four main types:
devolution, delegation, deconcentration and divestment (1999).
38
democracy, and promote good governance” (Cheema and Rondinelli, 2007: 4). The devolution
of many responsibilities to lower administrative levels was complemented by the emergence of
new governance arrangements with the involvement of actors and institutions, often absent of
public affairs, and justified by the improvement of effectiveness and efficiency of service
delivery and to provide the flexibility to ensure adequate and innovative responses to local
needs and demands40. These measures also reshape the power relations among governments,
local leaders, civil society and all the others implicated in the decision-making process. In this
sense, the role of factors such as culture, leadership, trust, participation became more and more
an object of analysis.
Local development initiatives are very diverse in nature and depend largely on the
development stage, locality-specific problems and resources. From this point of view, it was
signalled the “one size fits all” character of central government development programmes based
mostly on supply-side and State-aid investments for the provision of infrastructure which
became insufficient to change local and regional development paths. In alternative, bottom-up
development policies, or more recently “place-based approaches” became increasingly
discussed. They are built on the embedded local knowledge, the specific economic and socioinstitutional conditions, and through the involvement of local actors (Barca et al., 2012; Pike et
al., 2006). Policy investments depend on the policy goals defined (e.g., the rise of employment,
competitiveness or technological capability levels), but commonly they include the
implementation of tailor-made support measures to foster the development of firms, particularly
small and micro businesses and entrepreneurship through subsidies and tax credits, start-up and
incubation facilities and technical advice, and other types of advantages. Another sort of
measures implemented locally to stimulate the innovation process comprised educational,
training and research investments. Also, it was commonly encouraged the formation of
cooperative networks between individuals, sectors and collective actors and new forms of
governance such as partnerships among public and private actors, international agencies, or
non-governmental organisations. Further, the creation of an attractive socio-cultural
environment to live, produce and visit was also another aspect experimented on local
development policy.
40
A huge amount of literature talks about this major shift in territorial governance with important
repercussions to development initiatives at different scales (see, for example, Healey, 1997; Epson
Tango reports; Lidström, 2007; OECD, 2001).
39
Briefly, after a phase where external factors were considered the main development engine,
it follows a period in which the endogenous perspectives gained predominance in regional
political literature. Today, it is widely recognised the need to link these two perspectives of
territorial development “based on the idea of the combination of endogenous and exogenous
factors in promoting competitiveness, thereby articulating the local and global dimensions of
development (Costa, 2002: 103).
The balance between these two categories is also found in the concept of place-based
development. Named the “new paradigm of regional policy” by OECD (2009) and disseminated
in its reports, this approach was taken by Fabrizio Barca for the EU in the “An Agenda for a
Reformed Cohesion Policy” (2009). These development policies - founded on efficiency and
equity rationales, locally design, along with external interventions and multi-level governance;
aims to encourage the supply of integrated goods and production services tailored to contexts
as well as to produce institutional changes (Barca, 2009).
Finally, these ideas influenced the political debate about the concept of “smart
specialisation” related to the idea of a process of “entrepreneurial discovery” of distinctive and
original areas of specialisation at the regional level (Foray, 2009, 2014; Foray et al., 2012;
McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2015). This rationale become central in the discussion of smart
growth policies in the reformed European Union cohesion policy and the current funding cycle
(2014-2020) seeking to developed tailored policies and strategies to promote innovation
capacity based on each region’s specificities and established innovation patterns (e.g. EC,
2010b, 2014; Foray et al., 2012).
To recapitulate, the emergence of new approaches in development discourse, arise from the
discussion on ongoing changes on the macro level which has provoked several impacts on the
local level and influencing the governments' responses. Although most of the ideas and
practices in development give primacy to the economic dimension and quantitative and
exogenous factors. In recent years, alternative perspectives and paradigms have emerged. The
role of agglomeration and proximity on the location of the agents and on logics of interaction
established between them, the specificities of local attributes and assets, besides non-economic
and intangible factors to create a diverse and sustainable development of cities, regions and
countries have gained strong notoriety in development studies.
The approaches summarised above influenced politics and practices in all kinds of regions
and localities, however, it is at the urban level that these changes get more relevance in result
of the processes that we will address in the next section.
40
4. Setting culture in development framework
It was also in this changing framework that a “cultural turn” is signed in most social
sciences, based on the assumption that “the cultural” is a central constituent of social existence
and, therefore, it constitutes an essential object of social analysis. In the development field, and
despite that culture has always been a central dimension of it, only recently has been explicitly
recognised as either cause or explanatory variable to the success or failure of development
interventions41.
One reason that explains the greater visibility of culture in this field of action has to do
precisely with the criticisms made to the aforementioned development models such as the
predominance of Western European and North American visions; and the primacy of economic
growth theories and performance indicators, rather than in political, social and cultural
processes (Radcliffe, 2006; Radcliffe and Laurie, 2006). Regarding structurally deterministic
positions of economic change, different theoretical approaches were proposed that include
socio-cultural, relational and contextual aspects as well as new research methods and reflexive
strategies in development analysis. A range of studies contributed to this change of focus,
namely, the studies developed in poststructuralist, postcolonial, postmodernism and gender
theories.
Furthermore, it became irrefutable how culture influences the processes of development in
its multiple dimensions: from the economic, social equity, environmental quality, civic
participation, identity expression and, consequently, to the promotion of quality of life and wellbeing at various scales (Costa, 2002b).
Some authors as Jan Nederveen Pieterse observed that the growing centrality of culture in
social sciences is associated with the transfer from structural and macro approaches to micro
and actor-oriented approaches (Pieterse, 2009). This emphasises the individual agency, the
nature and meaning of actors’ interactions on a small scale instead of centred on broad and
regular patterns of social structure - class, parties, education, economy, etc.
However, the increasing visibility of culture in development discourses cannot be
disconnected from major contemporary economic, socio-cultural and related political
41
About the “cultural turn” in development field, see for example, Pieterse, 1995, 2009; Tucker, 1997;
Harrison and Huntington, 2000; Rao and Walton, 2004; Bezanson and Sagasti, 2005; Preston, 2005;
Radcliffe, 2006; Radcliffe and Laurie, 2006; Ilmonen, 2009; Flew, 2009.
41
transformations. Among them, we highlight the dynamics of globalisation, principally, its
cultural dimension which became clearly perceptible in the intensification of cultural flows, the
interdependence between global forces and local forms, as well as the development of new
forms and channels of cultural expression, mediation, dissemination and consumption, which
go beyond the spatial and time constraints (Robertson, 1992; Appadurai, 1996; Tomlinson,
2003, 2008; Radcliffe, 2006; Singh, 2010; Grodach and Silver, 2012).
Another related reason that is pointed out is the interrelationship between the cultural and
the economic field, and the emergence of a so-called “cultural economy” (Scott, 1997; 2000;
Pratt, 2007; Amin and Thrift, 2004; 2009). This turned our attention to the commodification of
culture and the part of economics that deals with the production of cultural goods and services,
but also to the way that culture configures the processes of economic practices. (Du Gay and
Pryke, 2002; 2009, 2007; Warde, 2002). In development policies, the increased connectivity
and competitiveness between locations, has made culture win a communicational value and
become a source of differentiation and competitive advantage in global markets (Costa, 2002b;
Cooke and Lazzeretti, 2008).
Among the cultural theories of globalisation that become manifestly acute with the shift in
emphasis of socio-economic occurrences for cultural phenomena, and that have relevance to
the study of development policies, we schematically underline the following positions. Firstly,
the homogenisation thesis that advocates a convergence towards a global culture and a
homogenisation of local cultures, as a result of the dissemination of standardised cultural
patterns (Giddens, 1990; Appadurai, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999, 2008; Lull, 2000). Secondly, and
in contrast, the theoretical approaches that note that local cultures have gained greater visibility
in the global settings, allowing them to affirm their differences and distinct identities, so give
them greater expression and power. There is also a greater perception of the “otherness” and
the desire for interaction with diverse cultural experiences. Based on this view, some sustain
that globalisation actually promotes cultural heterogeneity.
In addition, some authors argue that the cultural elements circulating in global flows are
always apprehended and reinterpreted locally, through assimilation and rejection processes,
constituting what the sociologist Roland Robertson (1992) classifies as “glocalisation” – – the
intertwining of local and global contexts and scales which originated complex new innovative
cultural forms and multiple identities (see also Robertson, 1992; Friedman, 1994;
Swyngedouw, 1997, 2004; García Canclini, 2005). On the other hand, the “space of flows”
(Castells, 1999; 2004) revises the nature of time and space considerations. Time is
simultaneously compressed and non-linear, and the space of places, a geographical and
42
delimited category in which historically the human experience is rooted, is covered by flows.
In them are manifested new processes of production, experience, representation, power
relations and culture.
In view of the globalisation processes, it has intensified the debate concerning the role of
state and the traditional hierarchical model of government. Besides, it has emerged reflections
around the governance concept and their multiple scales and spaces of action42 linked to the
impact of supranational institutions, public administrative reforms, new public management
ideas (Treib et al., 2005; Kohler-Koch and Eising, 1999; Kohler-Koch and Rittberger, 2006;
Haughton et al., 2010, among many others). This approach stressed the need to develop
interactivity and cooperation, formally and informally, between the State and private actors and
other non-governmental agents in order to generate consensus and common strategies of action
(Kooiman, 1993, 2003; Rhodes, 1996; 1997; Healey, 1997, etc.). Thus, among the new
governance arrangements present in the administrative reform of the various European
countries, it has been fostered the establishment of public-private partnerships, the organisation
of networks and multilevel policy coordination; and the institution of informal interaction in
decision-making and implementation processes. Governance ideas are also associated with
decentralisation practises, defined as the transfer of power, responsibility, and resources from
the centre to lower levels of administration (Rondinelli et al., 1983; Work, 1999; OECD, 2003;
Schneider, 2003; Cheema and Rondinelli, 2007; Dubois and Fattore, 2009; CEMR, 2013).
By taking the concept of governance as an analytical concept to describe political processes,
culture is the context and a resource managed by local governments and mobilised in the
development process. It is also an indispensable tool for political negotiation and steering, foster
trust among stakeholders, enhancing participation, establishing accountability and legitimacy,
and empowering communities and civil society actors to influence governance processes and
outcomes. Participation as a cultural strategy should also be understood as the possibility of
questioning the nature and the conditions of these processes happen.
According to with Nancy Duxbury (2014) three main interrelated dimensions should be
discussed within the framework of sustainable development:
1. the necessity to develop sustainability governance processes and structures that are
necessarily culturally sensitive.
2. the inclusion of a cultural framework or lens in all public policies and plans.
42
The term “governance” is used in a variety of ways and has a variety of meanings (see for example
Rhodes, 1997; Stoker, 1998; Pierre, 2000; Kooiman, 2003; Treib et al., 2005).
43
3. the improvement of a “sustainability approach” to cultural policy, planning and
governance (Duxbury, 2014).
Once again, in governance culture for development, the state and its agencies are no longer
the only protagonists, artists and civil society’ groups involved in cultural field are called to
intervene (Cliche, 2001). As an alternative to a more vertical and “bureaucratic” policy style,
cultural governance asks for flexible and opens forms through networks, forums, and other
forms of consultation and participation of various cultural stakeholders and users. Hence, the
participatory culture agenda has gained special attention in urban politics, implementing
measures that can increase the involvement of users in public culture and institutions but also
in policy-making (Sørensen et al., 2016; Stevenson, 2016; Virolainen, 2016).
Besides, the growing awareness of culture has arrived at planning discourses and practices.
Planning43 can be described as the set of requirements and measures of territorial governance
that aim to regulate the distribution of people and activities, but also to define the objectives
and strategies for the socio-economic development of territories (Othengrafen, 2012; UN ECE,
2008). The specificities of each cultural framework, that is, the history, attitudes and values, as
well as political and legal tradition, i.e., its “planning culture”, are arguably fundamental to
understand and guide planning practices and to set up development objectives and strategies in
different contexts and scales (e.g., Healey, 1997; Albrechts et al., 2003; Nadin and Stead, 2008;
Young, 2008; Knieling and Othengrafen, 2009).
In addition, many authors suggested an evolution in planning policies: a change in its
traditional regulatory role to include a more strategic approach (see, for example, Albrechts,
2004, 2006; Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009; Ferrão, 2011; Todes, 2011; Othengrafen and
Reimer, 2013). Despite the persistence of a vision focused mainly on land use management,
concerned with the regulation and configuration of physical infrastructures and their activities,
through “hard” policy instruments and derived from hierarchical structures, the new dynamics
and scales of governance and the inclusion of non-economic considerations require a more
integrated perspective. As Patsy Healey showed, planning is progressively understood as a
socio-spatial process marked by the relations between the actors involved (or excluded) in
43
Planning is understood and practised differently from country to country, in agreement with
historical traditions and countries’ contextual singularities, and using different terms. For instance:
in English is used the term “spatial planning”; in German “raumplanung”; in French “aménagement
du territoire”; in Portuguese “ordenamento do território”; in Dutch “Ruimtelijke Ordening”; and so
on. However, these are generally recognised as common points in the evolution of planning
thinking at European level.
44
several networks, conflicts of power and interest, as well as about the discursive strategies built
on multiple references and meanings, that are influenced by places experiences and
representations mobilised in governance processes (Healey, 2007), in other words, shaped by
culture.
The strategic and integral use of cultural resources emerged in the evolution of cultural
planning approaches mainly in the framework of urban regeneration strategies of post-industrial
cities44. Local authorities, informed by consultants and theorists like Charles Landry and Franco
Bianchini45, adopted cultural planning strategies interconnected with physical and town
planning to achieve key development objectives in areas such as community development,
place branding and marketing or industrial expansion (Ghilardi, 2001). It can also encompass
the use of planning regulations to encourage investments that generate cultural development
and vitality and, in turn, could trigger spill-over effects in other areas.
New approaches to governance and planning also benefit from contemporary development
thinking that exams structure-agency relation. Development is defined not only in economic
relations but also as regarding people’s freedoms and capacities to improve their social and
economic situation (Sen, 1999). It recognises the role of human agency in social change to
overcome the limitations of objective material constraints. Moreover, its capacity to think
creatively about the world and actively modify the course of events (World Bank, 2006). The
agency, as the “transformative capacity”, involves the exercise of power in social interactions
and depends on the ability of agents to mobilise resources and to influence others to achieve
certain purposes (Giddens, 1984). Likewise, a new culture of planning through participatory
and network governance mechanisms is claimed, pushing “decision makers, planners,
institutions, and citizens out of their comfort zones and compels them to confront their key
beliefs, to challenge conventional wisdom, and to examine the prospects of ‘breaking out of the
box’” (Albrechts, 2010: 1115).
44
Numerous studies tried to define what constitutes cultural planning, and several toolkits were
produced to support urban policy making (e.g. Bianchini, 1999; Evans, 2001; Ghilardi, 2001;
Gibson, 2004; Stevenson, 2004; Gray, 2006; Mercer, 2006; Evans and Foord, 2008; Markusen and
Gadwa, 2010; Othengrafen and Reimer, 2013). The next chapter will discuss further the outline of
cultural planning in urban context.
45
Charles Landry founded the think-tank COMEDIA whose research affected the development of
cultural studies and urban planning. Many individuals like Phil Wood, Jonathan Hyams, Fred
Brookes, Ken Worpole, Dave Morley, Franco Bianchini, Peter Hall, Geoff Mulgan, Liz Greenhalgh,
John Montgomery, Francois Matarasso, and many others contributed to a vast number of planning
projects and research across the globe.
45
In development processes, the analysis of structure-agency equation is often related to the
understanding of the connection between structural conditions (the socioeconomic and cultural
framework) and the actors’ actions involved in the formulation and implementation of policies
(e.g. Healey and Barrett, 1990; Healey, 1991; Adams, 1994). It includes the analysis of the way
that actors, individuals or groups carry out their strategies, interests and actions in development
processes. There is also an interest in the study of power relations and the role of dominant
actors, such as political leaders, “agents of change”, local elites, etc., namely, their influence to
set local policy agendas and to coordinate their implementation, and then, to modify the course
of events.
Looking at the central role of culture in development, one of the recurrent themes is related
to the issues of identity and cultural diversity. Thus, we look to “culture, as a source of identity”
(UNESCO, 1997) and this is very much related to the articulation of the identification and
differentiation processes. Among other things, we could say that identity is, simultaneously,
what defines us as members of a group or community and, also enable each one to affirm as
unique and singular individuals.
In this sense, cultural identity reflects the personal identification with a set of frameworks
and meanings associated with one or multiple collective identities. Cultural identity is a social
construction or a set of symbolic representations built, and continuously rebuilt, by the various
social actors.
The question of identity can be related to places beyond the means of defining the self and
the other. People’s identity of, and with, place comprises the promotion of a subjective
expression of a sense of belonging and, on the other hand, the perception of the others regarding
a place with distinctive qualities. Edward Relph identifies at least three components of people’s
involvement with places: the physical configuration, activities, situations, and events, as well
as the meanings, created through people’s experiences and their intentions regarding that
location (Relph, 1976: 47). Identity issues are explored in development processes through the
uniqueness of local cultures and cultural identity of groups and places, as a resource and a basis
for development. This advocate the preservation and maintenance of cultural identities and
specificities in the face of homogenising forces, celebrating or reinventing the diversity of
cultural traditions and lifestyles or strengthening the identification of communities and places
of culture. Furthermore, identity concerns are used as an argument for mobilisation and
participation of local communities and acceptance of cultural differences. In 2001, in the
“Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity”, UNESCO stated that cultural diversity is more
than just the right but also a prerequisite for policies to promote dialogue among peoples
46
(UNESCO, 2001). Finally, the identity of places is mobilised in governance processes, making
use of images, representations and narratives, often constructed or imagined by elites and
legitimated in practices and social relations.
To summarise, looking at the different uses of culture in development discourse and
policies, we underlined two main ideas. First, culture is often understood as a means and an end
of development (e.g. Throsby, 2001; Sen, 2004; Streeten, 2006; Soini, et al., 2012). This
approach in which culture is an instrument for development purposes presents it, respectively,
as a resource – in the sequence of modernisation theories; or as a commodity with market value
- based on neoliberal theories use culture for development goals (Yúdice, 2003).
The second point of view, and which has been largely discussed in human development
approaches, conceives culture as a development end in itself, a development priority in its own
right that gives people the liberty to choose (e.g. Hawkes, 2001; UNDP, 2004; Maraña, 2010;
IFACCA et al., 2013), i.e. “the process expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy” (Sen,
1999: 3).
From the point of view of sustainable development theorists, culture is the foundation of
sustainable development, but also its transformative capacity for the reason that development
implies the transformation of norms, values and behaviours (Soini and Birkeland, 2014). In this
sense, local governments in many countries have sought to implement a culture of sustainability
in urban development planning firmly rooted in local identity and history as well as in the
aspirations and needs of the local community while at the same time seeking to ensure
principles of equity, inclusiveness and diversity. Thus, cultural sustainability can be seen as “a
social process created through narratives that connect the past with the future, and the local with
the global (Birkeland, 2015: 165).
A strategy for sustainable development based on culture has in the awareness and
motivation of local actors an essential accelerator for a “change from the inside out” (O’Brien,
2013), and contributes to new ways of thinking and acting for the durable use of common
resources.
5. Culture in international development agenda
Much of this conceptual discussion around development and culture has taken place within
international organisations, particularly the United Nations. In the mentioned UNESCO’s
World Conference on Cultural Policies (1982) was established the idea of development as a
47
“complex, global and multidimensional process”. Beyond economic growth, this definition
includes “all of the life’s dimensions and all of the energies of the community, whose members
are called to contribute towards and share in the benefits”. Hence, the achievement of a
“balanced development” should integrate cultural factors into its strategies (UNESCO, 1982b).
Subsequently, UNESCO proclaimed the World Decade for Cultural Development (19881997) with the aim of promoting the acknowledgement of the cultural dimension in
development processes and “stimulate creative aptitudes and cultural life in general”46. The
edition of the World Commission on Culture and Development “Our Creative Diversity” report
(1995b) and subsequent UNESCO World Reports motivated international reflection about
cultural differences between people and the demands of globalisation on cultural diversity
providing knowledge for public policies.
Further, the annual reports of UNDP, the United Nations Development Programme initiated
in 1990, were a decisive contribution to the reflection on the human dimension of development
which has implicit a cultural logic. They stressed the role of people’s freedom and capabilities
to improve their condition of living (Anand and Sen, 2000). Together became published the
Human Development Index in an attempt to change the way of measuring progress beyond
mere indicators of income levels and trends in GDP growth and highlighting the importance of
human wellbeing.
An important milestone in this discussion was the introduction of the sustainable
development concept. Although this theoretical framework has begun to be developed earlier,
it was with the publication of the Brundtland Commission report “Our Common Future” (1987),
that the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) introduced the
idea of sustainability as a desirable goal of development. In it, development should “meet the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (WCED, 1987), embracing the principles of social equity and ecology responsibility in
addition to economic matters. In this early approach, cultural considerations are mainly
mentioned as a part of social dimension (Soini and Birkeland, 2014; Joost Dessein et al., 2015).
As a result, many researchers, leaders and professionals claimed in many studies and forums,
the consideration of culture as a “fourth pillar” in the model of sustainable development,
considering that it is well recognised from the outset that culture influences the conception and
practices of development (Hawkes, 2001; Nurse, 2006; UCLG, 2011).
46
World Decade for Cultural Development, 1988-1997. Plan of Action.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000852/085291eb.pdf
48
Other events contributed substantially to the promotion of culture in the framework of
sustainable development policy. For example, the UNESCO published the book “The Cultural
Dimension of Development. Towards a Practical Approach”, in which is recognised the
distinctive and integral role of culture detached from the social domain (UNESCO, 1995).
Later, in 2000, the World Bank co-sponsor with UNESCO the influential intergovernmental
conferences “Understanding Culture in Sustainable Development: Investing in Cultural and
Natural Endowments” and “Culture Counts: Financing, Resources and the Economics of
Culture in Sustainable Development”.
Along the years, these events had important repercussions of engaged culture in
development discussion (see some of the main landmarks that shaped the international agenda
since 2000s in Table 1).
YEAR AGENCY
2003 UNESCO
EVENT OR PUBLICATION
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage – ratified by +150 countries
Agenda 21 for Culture
2004
UCLG
2005
UNESCO
2007
UN
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions - ratified by +130
countries
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
2007
Fribourg Group
Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Right
2009
UN Human Rights Council
2010
UN General Assembly
2010
UCLG
2011
UN General Assembly
2011
UNESCO
2012
UN Conference on Sustainable
Development, endorsed by UN
General Assembly/High-level
UNESCO International Congress
‘Culture: Key to Sustainable
Development’
UNCTAD, UNDP and UNESCO
Established a post of Independent Expert in the field of
cultural rights for a 3-year period (extended)
Resolution re: connection between culture and
development”
Policy statement on “Culture: Fourth Pillar of
Sustainable Development”
Resolution 2 re: connection between culture and
development”
UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban
Landscape
Outcome Document of the UN Conference on
Sustainable Development
2013
2013
Final declaration “Placing Culture at the Heart of
Sustainable Development Policies - Hangzhou
Declaration
Creative Economy Report 3: Special Edition – Widening
Local Development Pathways
49
2013
2013
IFACCA, IFCCD, Agenda 21 for
Culture and Culture Action
Europe
UN General Assembly
2014
UN General Assembly
2014
3rd UNESCO World Forum on
Culture and the Cultural
Industries: ‘Culture, Creativity
and Sustainable Development’
2015
UCLG
2015
UNESCO, UNFPA and UNDP
2016
UNESCO
Culture as a Goal in the Post-2015 Development
Agenda. Launched of the #culture2015goal campaign
Resolution on Culture and Sustainable Development
A/RES/68/223
Thematic Debate on ‘Culture and Sustainable
Development in the Post-2015 Development Agenda’
(NYC); Panel Discussion ‘The power of culture for
poverty eradication and sustainable development’
Forum concluded with the adoption of the “Florence
Declaration” - recommendations on maximising the
role of culture to achieve sustainable development and
effective ways of integrating culture in the Post-2015
Development Agenda.
Culture 21 Actions: Commitments on the role of
culture in sustainable cities - first UCLG Culture Summit
(Bilbao)
Post-2015 Dialogues on Culture and Development
Culture: Urban Future - Global report on culture for
sustainable urban development
Table 1.1 International landmarks in culture and development agenda discussion. Adapted from Joost
Dessein et al. (2015: 15)
Despite all that has been said, it seems surprising why the culture was not part of critical
international statements and summits, such as the Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000)
set by world leaders during the UN Millennium Summit. However, in the process of revision
of these Goals, the UN published the resolutions N. 65/166 (2010) and N. 66/208 (2011) on
“Culture and Development” that recognised the role of culture as an important factor of social
inclusion and poverty eradication. They make a special reference to the inclusion of culture in
the post-2015 UN development agenda.
The need of integration culture in this agenda is corroborated by several actors in events
such as the Rio+20 Conference (2012) and the “International Congress Culture: key to
sustainable development” held in Hangzhou, China (2013). The UN agencies and other
organisations requested a more explicit inclusion of culture, whereas one aspect of
sustainability or even as a pillar in the development model (Hawkes, 2001; Nurse, 2006).
Since then, there have been other attempts. For example, in 2014, the “UNESCO World
Forum on Culture and Cultural Industries” produce the “Florence Declaration: Culture,
Creativity and Sustainable Development. Research Innovation, Opportunities” (UNESCO,
2014). Later, at UN at the Habitat-III Conference in Quito, Ecuador it was adopted the “New
Urban Agenda. At the same event, a Global Report on culture for a sustainable urban
development called “Culture: Urban Future” (UNESCO, 2016) was launched to provide a
50
policy framework to support governments in the implementation of the “2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Urban Development” and the “New Urban Agenda”.
One of the international organisations more active in the promotion culture in sustainable
cities is the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). In 2004, they adopted the “Agenda
21 for culture” establishing the principles and commitments by cities and local governments
for cultural development (Committee on Culture - UCLG, 2004). Some years after, they
approved a policy document “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development” (Committee
on Culture - UCLG, 2011). The “Agenda 21 for culture”, in partnership with different
international organisations, launched in 2013 the campaign “#culture2015goal” to include
culture in the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. A new updated version of the
“Agenda” was available in 2015 on the first UCLG Culture Summit called “Culture 21 Actions:
Commitments on the role of culture in sustainable cities” (UCLG, 2015).
At European Union level, culture and development relationship is largely linked to the
above examination of the evolution of culture meaning and cultural policy in EU in the postMaastricht period. This debate was primarily promoted in the framework of Cohesion Policy
through initiatives such as “Cohesion Policy and Culture: A Contribution to Employment”
(CEC, 1996)47, or the so-called “Lisbon Agenda”48, that aimed to foster a competitive and
knowledge-driven strategy centred on the creation of employment and the promotion of social
cohesion. The investment in culture-based development was seen as a way to contribute to
convergence, regional competitiveness and employment objectives. From the analysis of the
first two programming cycles, 2000-2006 and 2007-2013, the projects funded by the EU
Structural Funds varied mostly from tourism development to the cultural and creative
production (CSES, 2010), reflecting a change in the development priorities. It became
recognised the importance of cultural and creative industries in regional and local development
strategies through the:
promotion of cultural heritage for business use; development of cultural infrastructure
and services to support sustainable tourism; clustering of local businesses and
partnerships between CCIs and industry, research, education and other sectors; setting
up of innovation labs; development of cross-border integrated strategies to manage
47
48
COM (96) 512 final, 20. 11. 1996.
“The Lisbon European Council – An agenda of economic and social renewal for Europe”.
Contribution of the European Commission to the special European Council in Lisbon on 23-24
March 2000.
51
natural and cultural resources and revitalise local economies; sustainable urban
development (EC, 2010a).
The present 2014-2020 programming period, complemented by programmes such as the
Creative Europe Framework Programme, the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprise
and SME (COSME), the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020),
or Erasmus+ Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, aiming to ensure the
implementing the Europe 2020 development goals of sustainable, smart and inclusive growth.
Within this agenda, there is special emphasis on the promotion of cultural heritage and the
support of cultural and creative sector as well as cultural and creative skills to improve jobs,
growth and investment.49
As demonstrated concisely here, culture became prominent in political discourses
especially under the action of international organisations agenda. More, culture - in all its
diversity - is acclaimed as “a prerequisite for peace, a source of intellectual, emotional and
spiritual well-being and as a resource for socio-economic development and environmental
sustainability” (UNESCO, 2010). But, after decades of development thinking, there are still
considerable difficulties in translating all merits of culture to policy makers, beyond the
expectations placed on the creative economy (De Beukelaer, 2014). These questions have been
mainly posed in the context of urban development and in the set of requirements and measures
that constitute planning practices that we will try to develop in next section.
49
For more information consult http://www.cal-xl.nl/media/uploads/files/structuralfundsstudy.pdf;
https://www.welcomeurope.com/european-grants-2014-2020-programming-period.html;
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/culture/
52
CHAPTER II - CITIES IN CHANGING TIMES: BETWEEN LOCAL AND GLOBAL
The city has long been complex but incomplete, and in that mix of complexity and
incompleteness lies the possibility of those without power to make a history, to make a
culture, to make an economy (Saskia Sassen at Future of Places III Conference, 30th
June 2015, Stockholm, Sweden)50.
1. The urban agenda in multi-scalar politics and planning practices
In the last decades, the city emerged as a critical issue for the analysis of the dynamics and
transformations that are occurring in the contemporary world. As stated by Manuel Castells the
“urban problems” were becoming “an essential element in the policies of governments, in the
concerns of the mass media and, consequently, in the everyday life of a large section of the
population” (Castells, 1977: 1). More recently, John Wilmoth, director of UN DESA’s
Population Division underlines the importance of the urban agenda for the challenges of 21st
century development, and that it falls on “success or failure in building sustainable cities” (UN
DESA, 2014)51.
The importance of the urban agenda arises primarily from the empirical evidence of the
expansion of urban areas and the demographic growth of their populations and, of course, the
associated economic, political and social implications. However, the urban phenomenon is
marked by substantial differences in terms of scale, speed and spatial distribution.
According to the 2014 revision of the World Urbanisation Prospects, 54 per cent of the
world's population lives in urban areas (UN DESA, 2014). Its distribution and size is quite
variable between countries. The highest levels of urbanisation are in North America (81.5% of
urban dwellers), Latin America and the Caribbean (79.5%) and Europe (73.4%), but most urban
growth is occurring in Africa and Asia. More, about a half of the world's urban inhabitants
reside in relatively small settlements of less than 500,000 inhabitants, while only about one in
50
https://www.pps.org/article/report-final-future-places-meeting-stockholm
51
For the purpose of this study, the term urbanisation follows the formal definition of the United
Nations and designates the proportion of the total population living in urban. In this way, the
urbanisation process refers to an increase in the level of urbanisation, which in turn is indicated by
the percentage of a population living in urban areas, and the rate of urbanisation represents to the
growth rate in the level of urbanisation.
53
eight live in 28 mega-cities, most of them in global South52 (UN DESA, 2014) (see Figure
1.2)53.
Figure 1.2 Percentage urban and location of urban agglomerations with at least 500,000 inhabitants
(UN DESA 2014: 9)
The territory of the European Union today is highly urbanised, due to the widespread
population movements from rural to urban areas, which increased the number of people living
in urban localities and consequently the expansion of their areas54. Approximately 73 per cent
of its population lives in a variety of urban settlements, from small to medium-sized cities to
global cities with different characteristics, interdependencies and development paths (Eurostat,
2016). In comparison with, for instance, the USA or China, EU has a more polycentric and less
concentrated urban structure.
The spatial pattern of development of EU is based on several relatively small towns and
villages, as we will describe more precisely afterwards. There are only two megacities55,
London and Paris (12.5 million inhabitants and 11.8 million inhabitants, respectively) which
52
Of the world’s 28 mega-cities with more than 10 million inhabitants, sixteen are in Asia, four in
Latin America, three each in Africa and Europe, and two in Northern America (UN DESA 2014).
53
The criteria and methods used in the categorisation of cities for comparative purposes are dependent
on the institution that proposes them and have recognised problems, which will also be discussed in
the methodological chapter.
54
European urban areas have expanded on average by 78% since mid-1950s. Even in countries like
Spain, Portugal or Italy where the population is decreasing, there is an expansion of urban areas
(EEA, 2006).
55
The United Nations defines a megacity as having more than 10 million inhabitants.
54
have a prominent role in global flows and their national economies and urban systems,
accounting for very high shares of total population and overall GDP, as well as the highest
levels of GDP per person employed.
Aside from the classification by size, cities are interlinked in systems that combine distinct
functions and hierarchies, which marked the territorial development of EU. In general, and
despite the dynamism of these processes, a core-periphery model has prevailed in the
development of the EU. The central area, called the “pentagon”56, is characterised by a high
concentration of people and wealth achieving and includes the metropolises of London (UK),
Paris (FR), Milan (IT), Munich (DE) and Hamburg (DE) (CEC, 1999; ESPON 2013
Programme, 2014). In turn, the European periphery is less densely populated and has a more
dispersed urban system, namely some Northern European countries like Ireland, Norway,
Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States as well as some areas on the Iberian Peninsula, and in
Southeast Europe (Greece, Romania, Bulgaria). This model has been discussed given the
diversity or specialisation of functions and the complex interdependencies that the various
urban centres have developed at different scales and networks, and which became fundamental
in the policy formulation. For example, cities like Brussels (BE), Strasbourg (FR), Luxembourg
(LU) and Vienna (AT) stand out from other European cities because they congregate many
important organisational and political functions supported by high-quality transport
infrastructures, good accessibility and exchange knowledge and information (e.g. GöddeckeStellmann et al., 2011). In the tourism sector, after London and Paris, the historical “cultural
routes” highlighted the weight of cities such as Rome (IT); Prague (CZ) or Athens (GR).
However, other destinations upsurge as Barcelona (SP) or Glasgow (UK). Moreover, the region
of Munich (DE), followed by London and Paris, has the best performance in production, R&D
and innovation in ICT in the EU. Other cities in European core also became noticeable as
Karlsruhe (DE), Cambridgeshire (UK), Stockholm (SE); Darmstadt (DE); Uusimaa (FI);
Zuidoost-Noord-Brabant and Groot-Amsterdam (NL) and Leuven (BE) (Nepelski and De
Prato, 2013).
Urban areas are often considered development engines because of their high concentrations
of economic activity, employment and wealth, but they also present enormous challenges
56
In spatial research and planning policy field, at European Union level, it has been used several
images and analytical concepts to describe the position of cities within different networks (Davoudi,
2003; Ipenburg and Lambregts, 2001).
55
regarding sustainability, namely in solving problems concerning traffic, unemployment,
segregation, poverty, crime, pollution, among many others.
This outlook is a consequence of the many transformations that occurred in Europe in the
post-war period, namely the expansion of industrialisation and modernisation processes. As
referred by Henry Lefebvre “the urban revolution” is about:
the transformations that affect contemporary society, ranging from the period when
questions of growth and industrialisation predominate (models, plans, programs) to the
period when the urban problematic becomes predominant, when the search for solutions
and modalities unique to urban society are foremost (Lefebvre, 2003 [1970]: 5).
Urbanisation is not a recent phenomenon, but many aspects of the transformation into a
predominantly urban society are unprecedented57. In general, the advent of the industrial era,
with the development of new sources of energy, led to the consolidation of the Nation States
and the capitalist system as well as the emergence of large metropolises in the twentieth century.
The introduction of Fordism and the mass production system promoted the migration of a high
number of people from rural areas to cities in search of job opportunities and to improve their
living conditions. This, in turn, generated a rapid growth of cities in Great Britain, North West
Europe and North America. These events represented a historical turning point in urban
development evolution.
The cities’ progress has been the subject of varied analyses and interpretations. Some
authors established typologies based on the trends observed in urban growth patterns in many
countries of Western Europe, over the post-war period (see, for example, Klaassen et al., 1981;
Van den Berg et al., 1982; Cheshire, 1995; Champion, 2001). This could be useful to understand
demographic and socio-spatial transformations in European cities but also the implications of
consonant development policies and planning interventions.
In general, it is acknowledged that after the first phase of urbanisation, characterised by the
movement of people from rural areas to cities; there was a period of suburbanisation, in which
many city centres lost population that moved to peripheral areas (rings) or commuter areas.
Gradually, also, the jobs followed the people to the suburbs. The patterns observed towards
concentration or decentralisation depend mainly on the type and organisation of the dominant
industries, the existent infrastructures and government measures. The third stage called counter-
57
As we had previously noticed, the level of urbanisation in the world is unprecedented, due to the rise
of urban proportion of the total population and the migration of the population from rural areas to
cities, but also the increasing number of large metropolises in the world.
56
urbanisation represented a decline in the growth of the urban region and is often related with
deindustrialisation processes that occurred first in many western and then in eastern European
countries. In this stage, the loss of population in the city centres exceeded the demographic
expansion of the suburbs, and sometimes the peripheries also presented a decrease of the
number of residents, contributing to the decline of all city region. In some European urban
regions, there is a reversal in net migration flows, with the movement of migration from the
city to the countryside. Finally, some cities have gone through a phase of reurbanisation - also
known as “urban revival”, “revitalisation” or “renaissance”. The term reurbanisation is used in
many ways, but mainly to portray the return movement to the inner city, which may imply a
“back-to-city” of the inhabitants of the suburbs. It is often associated to gentrification processes,
where the residential neighbourhoods occupied by low-income groups within the cities are
converted to attract the middle and upper classes.
Urbanisation does not only represent the expansion of urban areas and the growth of its
population, but it is necessarily linked to an idea of urbanity as an expression of urban life and
cultures58. Cities are living and dynamic spaces. Plus, they always played a central role in
cultural and social transformations of European society, the processes mentioned above
introduced many changes in everyday activities and many other aspects of the social and
individual life of urban dwellers. Other factors were determinant to transform urban lifestyles,
such as the development of ICT and transport; the improvements in living conditions
(schooling, literacy, health assistance, etc.); the reduction of working time and consequently
the increase of leisure time; the rise of mass production and consumption and increasing media
exposure; the growth of middle-class and female employment; changes in the role and structure
of families; among others (Hall, 1997a; Costa, 2002b). For Nigel Thrift and Paul Glennie “new
consumption practices were closely linked to particular kinds of urban settings, rather than to
mass production, and indeed were associated with the revival of the notion of urbanism as a
distinct way of life” (1993: 35).
Some scholars, at the turn of the 20th century, have examined more acutely those
transformations. In general, they discussed the spread of patterns of consumption and lifestyles
as a result of the mass production and media diffusion and the adaptation to a market-oriented
and consumer economy. This is patent, for example, in the reflections of the German thinkers
Georg Simmel, Max Weber or Walter Benjamin, and in the Chicago School research, mainly
58
The concept of urbanity in Western sociological theories is used in diffuse ways, profoundly marked
by the historical, political, social and economic evolution of cities.
57
with Robert E. Park, Louis Wirth and Ernest Burgess. The urban sociologist Simmel was one
of the earliest scholars to examine the emergence of new forms of sociability and social
interaction in modern metropolis. In his essay “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (Simmel, 2002
[1903]) argued that life in modern cities was marked by the money economy, which in turn
challenged the preservation of autonomy and individuality. The constant exposure to a
multiplicity of stimuli motivated the individual to assume a reserved, detached, and blasé
attitude but, otherwise, it offered more opportunities for the development of the intellect and
freedom of the individual. Weber’s most important ideas on the city are in his essay “The City”,
published posthumously in 1921 (first English translation 1958). Unlike Simmel, Weber
considered size as an inadequate basis for conceptualising the city and selected as criteria the
principle of anonymity, the existence of an established market system and partial political
autonomy. Otherwise, Benjamin in “The Passagen-werk” or “Arcades Project” (1999 [1982]),
initiated (but unfinished) in 1927 during his stay in Paris, made remarkable descriptions of
modern city that contributed to the analysis of new urban consumption spaces associated with
the development of new kinds of sociability, identities and lifestyles.
Later, Park and Burgess, and their colleagues at the Chicago School, developed an approach
called “human ecology” in an analogy with natural ecosystems to explain the process of city
development and what determines the spatial location of different groups and activities within
it. Confronted with population growth and its expansion outside the central area, these
sociologists presented a theory of concentric zones in which the poorest people settle in the
central circle and the outer circles by successively more prosperous social groups (Park and
Burgess, 1921, 1925; Park, 1936). Looking acutely to Wirth’ approach in “Urbanism as a way
of life” (1938), he designates urbanisation as a distinctive “way of life” associated with the rise
of cities in the modern western world, concomitant with “the emergence of modern powerdriven machine technology, mass production and capitalistic enterprise” (Wirth, 1938: 5–8).
He concluded that differences in social patterns between urban and rural areas are the result of
their size, density and heterogeneity.
Further readings in urban studies were developed about the transformation and
diversification of modes of life and socialisation in consequence of the ongoing processes that
affect cities. However, it must be also considered that the extension of contacts, exchanges,
mobility, consumption patterns, etc. progressively transcended the boundaries of cities and
contaminated the so-called rural lifestyle or rurality.
After the 1970s, many cities experiment a phase of deindustrialisation of labour-intensive
industry, the relocation of production facilities and the widespread of structural unemployment
58
and increase social polarisation. In the last decades, the process of urbanisation has been
particularly marked by the dynamics between global and local, technological innovations, as
well as socio-cultural and economic developments in the current phase of capitalism. This
trajectory of capitalist restructuring was influenced by the expansion of neoliberal political
ideas and strategies towards deregulation, capital mobility, trade liberalisation, and
commodification fostered by some national governments and supranational institutions
(Brenner and Theodore, 2002, 2005; Peck et al., 2009).
Despite the nuances and diversity of local circumstances, the changes that have taken place
in this period with the mobilization of policies towards the development of market discipline,
competition, and commodification throughout all sectors, led to a greater decentralization and
flexibility of production and new ways of organizing the division of labour (about this theme,
see for example, Piore and Sabel, 1984; Schoenberger, 1988; Scott, 1988; Jessop, 1992; Amin,
1994; Lipietz, 1997; Castells, 1996; Brenner and Theodore, 2002, 2005; 2008). In this “new
economy” (Beyers, 2003), also called as “knowledge economy” (e.g. Cooke and Piccaluga,
2004), “cognitive-cultural capitalism” (e.g. Scott, 2008), among other terms, new growth fields
are emerging in sectors like technology-intensive production, financial and culture, focus on
unstandardized products and differentiation.
During the 1960s and 1970s, several other scholars attempted to trace out the contours of a
society under the above-mentioned structural changes. Alain Touraine described the transition
to a post-industrial society as the result of the increase in the production of symbolic goods in
detriment of the production of material goods or even services (Touraine, 1971 [1969]). Other
scholars such as Daniel Bell (Bell, 1973, 1976) in the analysis of post-industrial society
theorised about the central role of information as the drive for a new social reality framed by
the decline of manufacturing employment and the rise of service sector employment and
informational workers. Similarly, Manuel Castells (1996) describes a new economy as
“informational”, in which the production, processing and transmission of information changed
the relations of production, power and experience. The new media significantly transformed
the social forms of space and time and, along the economic crisis of capitalism and collapse of
the Soviet Union as well as the developing of new social movements produced a new social
structure. This new social structure is designated as “a network society”, considering that
networks structure all its dimensions, including territorial dynamics and contemporary forms
of urbanisation. It also created a new culture a “culture of real virtuality” defined as a system
in which “reality itself... is entirely captured, fully immersed in a virtual image setting, in the
59
world of make believe, in which appearances are not just on the screen through which
experience is communicated, but they become the experience” (Castells, 1996: 373).
The conditions that shaped the development of urbanisation in that period breakdown with
the usual forms of urban life associated with Fordist-Keynesian capitalism and emphasised the
emergence of “consumer society”. Theorists like Guy Debord (1994, originally published in
1967 as “La société du spectacle”) introduced in the analysis of this society, the idea of
“spectacle” defined as the forms of social practice mediated by images, associated with a new
stage of urbanisation. He argued that our society is saturated by images – where power relations
are inscribed – that increasingly define and shape the urban life. In line with this approach,
Henri Lefebvre in “Critique of Everyday Life” (Lefebvre, 1991, translation of “Critique de la
vie quotidienne” 1947) associated the relations of production of capitalism and processes of
urbanisation to the alienation concerns and the extension of the commodity form into everyday
life. An interesting point is the Lefebvre's view about the production of space, which comprises
1) the perceived space - the material spaces of daily life where social production and
reproduction occurs; 2) the conceived space - the discourses, signs, and meanings of space that
are socially constructed; and 3) the lived space – the material dimension of social life combined
with the symbolic experience (Martin and Miller, 2003). He also reflected on globalisation as
a process of worldwide spatial restructuring where geographical scales and scalar hierarchies
are being profoundly rearticulated, reorganised and redefined (e.g. Swyngedouw, 1997, 2004,
Brenner, 1999, 2000)59.
Like post-industrial theories, postmodern literature emphasised the primacy of information
and the emergence of a distinct type of society and city60. One of the starting points for this
discussion was the essay of Jean-François Lyotard “La Condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le
savoir” (1979, translated in English as “The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge”,
1984). He used the word “postmodern” to describe the status of knowledge which “is altered as
societies enter what is known as the post-industrial age and cultures enter what is known as the
postmodern age” (Lyotard, 1984: 3).
Among others, David Harvey (1989b) and Fredric Jameson (1991) designated
postmodernism as “cultural logic of late capitalism”. The new regime of capitalist accumulation
59
Lefebvre devoted special attention to the notion of scale, for example in “La production de l'espace”
(1974) (in English: “The production of space”).
60
For further discussion see, for example, Krishan Kumar “The Post-Modern Condition (1997) or my
own master’s thesis (Tomaz, 2007).
60
and technologic advances provided new space-time experiences, transforming relations
between subjects and the world. These emergent forms of experience are related to the transition
to a “postmodern aesthetic that celebrates difference, ephemerality, spectacle, fashion, and
commodification of cultural forms” (Harvey, 1989b: 156).
Many postmodern works accentuated the use of images, signs, aesthetics and culture in the
transformation of post-industrial cities that are intimately linked to changes in urban cultures
and lifestyles (see, for example, Harvey, 1989b; Featherstone, 1991; Jameson, 1991; Watson
and Gibson, 1995; Zukin, 1995, 1998). As Harvey added “the city has to appear as an
innovative, exciting, creative and safe place to live or to visit, to play and consume in” (Harvey
1989a: 9). These ideas have been introduced in narratives and strategies of urban to the
processes of economic regeneration of many cities across Europe during the 1980s and 1990s
– for instance, Montpellier, Nimes, Grenoble, Rennes, Hamburg, Cologne, Glasgow,
Birmingham, Barcelona, and Bologna –, in order to attract mobile capital and workers (Hall,
1988).
In general, it is recognised that one of the major features of society in second half of the
twentieth century is the shift of emphasis from production to consumption manifested in the
diversity of lifestyles and spaces (Lefebvre, 1974; Harvey, 1989b; Lash and Urry, 1994; Urry,
1995; Castells, 1996, 1998; Baudrillard, 1998 [1970]; Bauman, 1998). Not only is the city
considered a privileged place for consumption; but also, became the object of consumption.
In a context of intensification of globalisation, technological change, neoliberal ideology,
and capitalist restructuring, cities are increasingly influenced by the form and intensity with
which they participate in global networks of production, information, investments,
consumption, etc. In this new framework, some cities stand out as hotspots by the intensity and
density of connections that they establish in different scales. They are at the core of the
geopolitical, cultural, and economic world dominated by flows of capital, people and goods,
and an entire infrastructure of transportation, telecommunications, energy and water. Manuel
Castells’ theory of a “space of flows” drew attention to the way in which cities are
interconnected worldwide in an economy that is “informational, global, and networked”
(Castells, 1996: 77). According to this author the “urban constellations scattered throughout
huge territorial expanses, functionally integrated and socially differentiated, around a multicentered structure” (Castells, 2004: 83) demonstrate the emerging of a new type of metropolis.
Diverse terms are used to designate this new urban form, for example, “world cities”
(Friedmann and Wolff, 1982; Friedmann, 1986); “global cities” (Sassen, 1991, 2001);
“postmodern metropolis” (Soja, 2000); and “world cities network” (Taylor, 2004).
61
Globalisation has linked dispersed geographical places, but also locations within the various
hierarchical territorial scales, aside from the urban centres and their surrounding places.
Although, not everyone benefits equally from the global exchange circuits and access to goods
and services, people’s movement and cross-border investment (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 Cities’ participation in global and European networks (ESPON 2013 Programme: 8)
62
The way in which urban settlements interact in these dense inter-scalar networks is often
conditioned by their size, functions, resources, infrastructures, and institutions. In addition,
global-local dynamics caused powerful repercussions on the development of cities, especially
in their structure, built environment, and social and political organisation. Impacts also vary
and define differentiated city’s zones, not only in terms of property rights and land use but also
lifestyles and demographic profiles, as has already happened in the past. The spatial
configurations of the city and neighbourhoods have become a product of diverse relational
networks and the way different groups participate in the social and economic life of the city.
Cities are no longer seen as coherent and homogenous but fragmented, interdependent and
splintered entities located in broader global-local connections, but also urban-rural and coreperiphery ties (Graham and Marvin, 2001; Hall and Barrett, 2012).
The formation of large megacities and polynuclear metropolitan regions, it is one of the
most visible expressions of the current urbanisation phase. On the contrary, capitalist
urbanisation “hinges upon and continuously produces differentiated, unevenly developed
sociospatial configurations at all scales” (Brenner and Schmid, 2015: 175). New uses,
functions, and activities reconfigured the relationship between urban and rural areas, as well as
the centre-periphery hierarchies and pre-defined urban centres.
The urban and rural, traditionally seen as two opposite social entities, with distinct functions
and sectors of economic activity, as well as specific social reference groups and landscape type
have been redefined by the development of infrastructures and connectivity -physical and
digital-, changes in employment patterns, and increased mobility. However, people in many
countries tend to move out the inner cities to suburban, peri-urban areas, and other spatial
configurations. The boundaries between the urban and rural are increasingly blurred,
influencing each other in a variety of issues including employment, markets, lifestyles,
transport, education, environment, etcetera. On the other hand, many of the goods produced and
consumed in the city and rural areas are incorporated into regional but also global value chains,
diminishing the interdependence between adjacent places along with the promotion of new
possibilities to cooperate as well as diversified local economies and labour market (see, for
example, ESPON, 2006a; Copus, 2013; Berdegué and Proctor, 2014).
Driven in large part by global competitive forces and technological innovations, urban
development has been increasingly shaped by the shift from manufacturing to technology- and
knowledge-based system of production and services (Knight, 1995; Castells, 1996, 1998;
Rondinelli et al., 1998; Mayer, 2006; Yigitcanlar et al., 2008; Yigitcanlar, 2009; Sarimin and
Yigitcanlar, 2012; among many others). The competitive advantages of urban regions are not
63
exclusively grounded on natural resources or low-cost production but progressively in
intangible assets as knowledge, skills and creativity (Begg, 1999; OECD, 2001b; Turok, 2004;
Yigitcanlar, 2014; Yigitcanlar and Velibeyoglu, 2008). Many cities and regions invested in the
development of specialised activities and function in certain locations, from science and
technological parks to innovation and cultural districts. As we will observe later, they aimed to
attract knowledge and creative workers and firms, promote linkages with Higher Education
Institutes and R&D centres as well as to foster a distinct image externally (Van Winden, 2010).
As opposed to public investment in factors of competitiveness such as infrastructure, transport,
international events, large urban regeneration projects, etc., increasing cuts in public spending
led many European cities to decline their intervention in measures of social protection and
inclusion.
The overall productivity slowdown of the European economy, also emphasised the need for
countries and regions to specialise in a particular set of activities or sectors, especially in
knowledge-intensive industries, driven by the capabilities and strengths of each territory (e.g.
Asheim et al., 2011; ESPON, 2012; Boschma, 2013; Tödtling et al., 2013; Dhéret and Morosi,
2014). This can be linked to some recent approaches proposed in European policies such as
those related with the concept of place-based development (Bachtler, 2010; Barca, 2009) and
smart specialisation (Foray et al., 2009, 2011; Foray, 2015; McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2015).
Furthermore, there is a vast literature that has focused on the benefits and costs of
agglomeration economies as a driver of various contemporary urban dynamics. Empirical
research has attempted to identify the nature and role of agglomeration in reducing costs,
improving production, and gaining efficiency. According to neoclassical economics literature,
it is argued that the spatial concentration of firms and workers in cities can contribute to foster
productivity and innovation and, then, produce externalities and increasing returns to scale.
Two major types of agglomeration economies are referred. The first focuses on location
economies is based on Alfred Marshall's specialisation externalities approach (1920 [1890])61.
It emphasises the importance of proximity and interactions obtained through the agglomeration
of firms or producers belonging to the same -or related- industry increase efficiency. More, the
co-location or clustering of firms favours input-output linkages, the existence of skilled labour
pool and facilitates the transmission of knowledge between workers and companies. The second
61
Marshall's work on industrial districts has influenced diverse literature in economics and geography
such as the research about “Territorial Innovation Models”.
64
type based on the potential of urbanisation economies is informed by Jacobs' diversification
externalities approach (1969)62. It seeks to describe how the high density and diversity of
industries promotes cross-industry spill-overs of knowledge and technology (e.g. Martin, 2003;
Capello, 2004; Turok, 2005; Frenken et al., 2005; Quigley, 2009; Glaeser, 2010; 2011; Combes
and Gobillon, 2015).
More recently, there is a strong emphasis on “urban network externalities” (Capello, 2000;
Boix and Trullén, 2007; Meijers et al., 2016), which relates the interactions in city networks
with the performance of places. What Simona Iammarino and Philip McCann points out as the
“capability of individuals, firms, organisations and institutions to interact, engage, take
initiatives and make decisions across different locations and within networks” (Iammarino and
McCann, 2013: 318). These theoretical ideas influenced many economic development
strategies, as the concentration and diversity of resources, activities and relations in urban
settlements are considered capable to induce innovation, economic growth and productivity.
Therefore, the development of attractiveness factors, the consolidation of specialisation and
functional profiles to compete in the international arena, together with the management of
tensions and internal imbalances, became major concerns in local political agendas. Many
governments assumed a “proactive role” or “entrepreneurial approach” implementing
progressively a neoliberal agenda, that involves the approval of regulatory arrangements
oriented to market rules and commodification to capture the global flows of capital. In addition,
urban actors stimulated extra-economic conditions to sustain competitiveness in areas such as
education, public-private partnership, relations between industry and finance, intellectual
property regimes, corporate culture, and so on (Jessop and Sum, 2001, 2006). As observed by
Neil Brenner, Jamie Peck and Nik Theodore (2010) these neoliberal policy ideas have been
disseminated across transnational webs of knowledge and global and supranational institutional
arrangements, that promote policy transfer and policy prototype experimentation. However,
these processes are path-dependent and assumed place-specific forms with diverse impacts
within cities and city-regions (Peck and Theodore, 2010).
Furthermore, the processes of urbanization perform a rethinking of urban governance
associated with the discussion of the changing role of the State, the multiple scales of politics
and the legitimation of new modes of intervention in urban political arena (Brenner, 2000, 2004;
62
Jane Jacobs’ theory of urban growth has supported further research focus on importance of diversity
in the local economy to improve competitiveness such as the Richard Florida theory of the
‘geography of talent’ (2000).
65
Borraz and Galès, 2010; Eckhardt and Elander, 2011; Brenner et al., 2012). Despite the different
forms of national organisation of each Member State, whether in centralized unitary states or
federal states, most have initiated reform processes to improve the efficiency of public action.
Although the different forms of national organisation of each Member State, whether
centralised unit states or federal states, most have initiated reform processes to improve the
efficiency of public action. In general, they sought to reduce the public authorities' direct
intervention gradually and to involve other sectors of society. New governance models have
been introduced, creating agencies and departments to manage urban policies and establishing
public-private partnerships and inter-sectoral collaborations. The reconfiguration of urban
governance was due in large part to the processes of rescaling in most European countries,
where the national scale lost its predominant role in the coordination of policies (Brenner,
2004). It comprises a movement upwards to the international and supranational organisations,
whose actions had a growing influence in urban agendas, but also downwards movement, given
the decrease of financial resources and the enlargement of responsibilities in consequence of
the politico-administrative reforms undertaken in many Western countries (Brenner, 2004). But
as Jamie Peck and Adam Tickell argued “in the asymmetrical scale politics of neoliberalism,
local institutions and actors were being given responsibility without power, while international
institutions and actors were gaining power without responsibility” (Peck and Tickell, 2002:
386).
It should be noted that the policies and strategies adopted at the level of cities are the result
of processes of transfer that some authors designate of “political mobilities and assemblages”
(McCann, 2011; McCann and Ward, 2012b; Temenos and McCann, 2013). The transnational
networks where cities are increasingly involved, disseminate knowledge, models and practices,
entailed and mediated by political experts and officials, and after that, end up having great
influence in setting local political agenda (Temenos and McCann, 2013).
A richer understanding of the processes embedded in contemporary urban politics should
comprise an analysis of Europeanisation through the implementation of EU legislation and the
allocation of Structural Funds under the European Regional and Cohesion Policy, in addition
to the development of transnational networks by municipal actors and institutions (Guderjan,
2012). Looking at the direct and indirect impacts of European integration, particularly since the
1990s, it is widely recognised that this process has a significant impact on cities across Europe.
Europeanisation processes -as the mechanisms of European integration- include “the
reorientation or reshaping of politics in the domestic arena in ways that reflect policies,
66
practices or preferences advanced through the EU system of governance” (Bache and Jordan,
2006: 30; Bache, 2008: 8).
According to the Committee of the Regions, around 70% of EU policies and legislation are
implemented at local and regional level63, being recognised more and more the potential of
cities as political actors to improve changes, manage local resources and contribute to policy
legitimacy and appropriateness64. On the one hand, local actors have to adapt and guide their
action and structures to fulfil the eligibility criteria or specific objectives of the funding
programs. On the other hand, European programmes offer many opportunities for cities to
implement their strategies of local-level development and to participate in transnational
networking with other cities or regions as well as disseminate the “successful cases”
internationally. Also, cities are increasingly doing direct lobbying at EU institutions or
pressuring their national representatives to influence European policy-making to incorporate
local experiences and promoting their interests.
The analysis of urban political leadership is also considered relevant due to the growing
complexity of political decision making in the multi-scales of politics and the factors that
influence the cities’ transformation. It also offers some insights into agency-structure relation.
Political leadership must be understood as the exercise of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power (Nye, 2008)
that creates the conditions that drive political changes. This includes the formal activities taken
by local executive, such as the directly elected mayors, and the informal relationships
established among local stakeholders, such as regional authorities, chambers of commerce, civil
society organisations, etc. (about the theme see, for example, Borraz and John, 2004; Goldsmith
and Larsen, 2004; Keating and Frantz, 2003; Masciulli et al., 2009; Nunes Silva, 2009).
An interesting study is the analysis of 14 countries led by Paul Maurithzen and James Svara
(2002) which resulted in a typology of four ideal types government forms in correlation with
leadership:
1. Strong-mayor form – the elected mayor has all executive functions and controls local
administration. In this form is emphasise the political leadership principle (South European
countries).
63
Report on the urban dimension of EU policies (2014/2213(INI)) by the Committee on Regional
Development.
64
For a review of EU approach to urban policy (see, e.g. Van den Berg et al., 1998; Atkinson, 2001,
2008, 2015; Atkinson and Lane, 2007; Parkinson, 2005).
67
2. Committee-leader form – executive powers are shared between the political leader and
collegiate bodies (council, committees, community board) (Denmark, Sweden and UK).
3. Collective form – a collegiate leadership of an executive committee of locally elected
politicians and presided by the mayor (Belgium and Netherlands).
4. Council-manager form – all executive functions are held by a professional administrator
-the city manager- appointed by the local council with considerable influence on local policy
making and implementation (Ireland, Finland and Norway) (Mouritzen and Svara, 2002: 55–
56).
It is important to remember, once again, that the trends above succinctly described differ
from country to country and from region to region. For instance, the successive phases of EU
enlargement reflect a priori unlike conditions and asynchronous in the institutional reforms
performed by the member’s states that integrate the European project. But, notwithstanding the
diversity of situations, and running the risk of generalizing we also observe a certain degree of
convergence towards an increasing relevance of the urban, market-oriented economies,
rescaling state processes and the emergence of new actors in development policies.
For example, a common distinction is made between North-Western European countries
vis-a-vis post-socialist states of Central and Eastern Europe, and how each historical
institutional structure determines current approaches. However, some authors mention a
correspondence between post-industrial urban forms and those developed in the post-socialism
period. The reforms after the 1990s, led to many post-socialist cities to develop, in a short
period, processes in which they have adapted capitalist characteristics such as reestablishment
of private property rights, reintroduction of real estate market, expansion of commercial spaces
including the commodification of historical centres, reduction of State intervention in planning
practice, and growing diversification of architectural and cultural styles (Hirt, 2005, 2008;
Stanilov, 2007). In Eastern Europe, most contemporary cities experience a decline of their
population and intense process of suburbanisation. Some attractive historical cores and certain
selected inner-city districts are experiencing gentrification processes.
The same can be observed regarding the countries of southern Europe. Largely, as
consequence of the late industrialization, population growth of cities followed different paths
in terms of time and speed, with strong tendency of suburbanisation. The need to adjust their
economies to increase competition, the integration of EU single market, led to the
transformation of their economies in relation to northern Europe.
More recently, the financial and economic crisis has accentuated the challenges and
highlights social, economic and spatial polarisation, both within and between many European
68
cities. As European Commission states: “the economic crisis has further amplified the effects
of globalisation and the gradual retreat of the welfare state in most European countries” (EC,
2011b: 22). The reduction of public budgets and austerity policies combined with the rising
need for social expenditure have brought an additional number of cities closer to a similar
situation (especially in Southern Europe). It has also renovated urban social movements in
protest about injustice, destructiveness, and unsustainability of capitalist forms of urbanization.
At the beginning of the 21st century, most people live in a changing urban condition, shaped
by global interdependencies and technological innovations that result in different urban forms
and require new commitments and strategies to achieve economic, social, cultural and
environmental sustainability. As Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid affirmed: “The urban is a
collective project -it is produced through collective action, negotiation, imagination,
experimentation and struggle” (Brenner and Schmid, 2015: 178).
Moreover, if the “urban question” is clearly multifaceted and multidimensional, its analysis
should include explorations and discussions on the different types of cities, not as an attempt to
be comprehensive or to make comparisons, but rather to illustrate the diversity and specificity
of the phenomenon. Also, the examination of the urban should go beyond politicaladministrative boundaries and in articulation with suburban zones and rural agricultural and
non-agricultural areas in broader functional urban areas.65 This point of view is particularly
relevant for the diagnosis, definition, planning and implementation of integrated and sustainable
development strategies.
2. The place of small and medium-sized cities in European territory
Despite the recent urban explosion in many parts of the world and the emergence of large
megacities, the long-urbanized European territory has an urban pattern where smaller cities
predominate (see Figure 3.2). Around 40% of the urban dwellers live in small urban areas (from
65
There are different definitions of Functional Urban Area (ESPON, 2005) in general it refers to
agglomerations of municipalities joined according to their functional orientation to reflect the actual
daily operations of people, enterprises, and community organisations (Antikainen and Vartiainen,
2002).
69
Figure 3.2 Prevailing population settlement type. Source: ESPON 2013 Programme (2015).
10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants) and 20% in medium-sized cities (between 50,000 and 250,000
inhabitants), in comparison with the more than 20% that live in large conurbations (more than
250,000 inhabitants). Also, in the European spatial system there are nearly 1,000 urban centres
70
with above 50,000 inhabitants and about 5,000 towns that have between 5,000 and 50,000
inhabitants (EEA, 2006) These towns play an important role both in central Europe as well as
in regions with a wider distribution of population, e.g., in Central Finland, Latvia, Lithuania,
middle Spain, and large parts of Italy. Countries like France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Norway and Slovakia have a higher proportion of population living in smaller
settlements than the EU average.
Notwithstanding its significant presence, there has been relatively little political attention
and research about smaller cities. They tend to focus on the major urban centres and
metropolises, given their scale, diversity and density of resources relationships, and potentially
their greatest ability to compete and grow economically. As argued by Anne Lorentzen and Bas
Van Heur (2012) this leaves an enormous gap in our knowledge on the contemporary urban
change and about the “spatial and scalar dynamics of these economies” rooted in political
governance and social equity issues that are critical to delineate sustainable urban strategies.
However, more and more studies have focused on the importance of these cities for a more
integrated and sustainable development (see, for example, Bell and Jayne, 2006; ESPON,
2006b; Allingham, 2009; Selada et al., 2011; Duxbury, 2012; Servillo et al., 2014; HESPI and
EUKN, 2015).
Because the EU Member States have adopted different criteria and methods for categorising
their cities, as we will discuss in the methodological chapter below, we have chosen to focus
on small and medium-sized urban centres with less than 250,000 inhabitants. There is, however,
a vast heterogeneity of situations, depending on factors such as physical connectivity and
geographical context, but also the historical, social, administrative and cultural circumstances
of each territory. It is also crucial to analyse the functional relations that each city establishes
with other scales (see, for example, some representations of different SMUA’ situations in
Figure 4.2).
At EU level, the discourse about SMUA has gained relevance with the idea of polycentrism
as an alternative to a model of concentration around megacities. This approach aims to
overcome disparities between regions, by strengthening the advantages of competing nationally
and internationally, as well as creating conditions for regional socio-economic development
(CEC, 1999; Davoudi, 2003; ESPON, 2005; Green, 2007; Meijers, 2007).
71
Figure 4.2 Types of SMUA
The European Spatial Development Perspective – ESDP (CEC, 1999)66 established the
policy framework, where SMUA are considered as focal points for regional development, in
the development of industry and service-related activities, such as ICT, research and tourism,
in extension to their traditional economic base. After that, the European Spatial Planning
Observatory Network (ESPON) took the concept of polycentrism as a central policy concept
and defined it in morphological terms, as the presence of multi-nodal urban system, as well as
the process of urban networking and cooperation, based on local assets and specificities to
regional development and economic growth (ESPON, 2005).
In conformity, the term “functional polycentricity” has been discussed in urban studies in
opposition to a monocentric urban structure. It designates the functional relations between
different centres within the urban system (not necessarily in the same category) but also as the
balanced distribution of flows within this system (Vasanen, 2013). The term was used in
different scales of analysis: the intra-urban scale, focus on the socio-economic relations
66
The approval of the ESDP has resulted from a long process of work with two earlier important
communications from the European commission “Towards an urban agenda in the European
Union” (CEC, 1997) and the “Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework
for action” (CEC, 1998).
72
between a centre in a determined region and its sub-centres, and the inter-urban scale, refer to
the intensive connexions between different but adjacent cities, without a clear dominant centre
(Vasanen, 2013).
The ESPON programme has contributed significantly to understand the specific role of
small and medium-sized cities and towns for a more balanced spatial pattern of development
and a higher level of competitiveness. Several publications such as “Urban-rural relations in
Europe” (ESPON, 2004), “The role of small and medium-sized towns in Europe” (ÖIR, 2006),
“Territory Matters for Competitiveness and Cohesion” (ESPON, 2006a), or “TOWN, small and
medium sized towns in their functional territorial context” (Servillo et al., 2014) offered an
outlook of the challenges and importance of these urban centres as nodes of a polycentric
system.
Furthermore, in the formulation of a territorial dimension in overall EU policies numerous
seminal documents were published such as the “Territorial Agenda of the European Union”
(EC, 2007b), the “Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” (CEC, 2008); the “Territorial Agenda
of the European Union 2020” (EC, 2011c) and, recently, the report produced on behalf of the
Latvian Presidency of the Council of the EU “Challenges of Small and Medium - Sized Urban
Areas, their economic growth potential and impact on territorial development in the European
Union and Latvia” (HESPI and EUKN, 2015). In pursuit of cohesion objectives, those
documents emphasised the need to integrate all regions and localities regardless of the scale,
including the SMUA, recognising the interdependence between them and their rural
surroundings.
Thus, in accordance with the documents presented here summarily, it is underlined the
functional approach that describes a city or urban centre as an urban settlement or municipality
placed in a wider socio-spatial system, determined by administrative, economic, educational,
cultural and other functional relations. Depending on their position in the territorial system,
these towns can take advantage of synergies, complementarities, and competition between
adjacent cities at regional level but also in global networks, develop economies of scale and
relevant critical mass. They can act as poles of development for the surrounding areas,
providing resources, administrative support, labour market, infrastructures for knowledge and
innovation, and other important functions. Further, smaller towns can ensure better health and
well-being conditions, and livelihoods not only for their populations, but also for those living
in the surrounding areas. As summarised in the EC report “Cities of tomorrow”, some common
attributes are generally recognised in these cities “particularly their human scale, liveability,
73
the conviviality of their neighbourhoods, and their geographical embeddedness and historical
character – in many ways constitute an ideal of sustainable urbanism” (EC, 2011b: 4).
However, some limitations and challenges are also ascribed to most cities of smaller
dimension, including loss and ageing of the population, migration of young and educated
people, declining economic activity, contingent to a limited range of economic activities,
insufficient connectivity and difficulties in supply and access to public services. Moreover, in
the current definition of urban policy agenda, profusely influenced by globalisation and Single
Market integration process, competitiveness has been a panacea for economic and employment
growth67. In general, cities compete to attract business, investment and people and, at same
time, they try to improve resilience; developing “cultural and social vitality; social capital and
innovative capacity; high-quality environment; low levels of poverty; amenities; participatory
governance; and political stability” (Douglas, 2012: 60).
At the outset, SMUA seem to be at a disadvantage if we consider the physical size and
degree of diversity and density of resources and links to inter-urban competitiveness as
determinants. However, some factors have contributed to increasing their attractiveness vis-àvis major European cities. Many large metropolises faced severe problems, such as industrial
restructuring demand, restrictions on land availability and planning regulation, especially in
historic centres, as well as, a greater incidence of negative externalities, for example, traffic
congestion, high levels of pollution and crime, cost of living, real estate prices expensive,
among others. To increase the appeal of SMUA, it has also contributed the improve access to
services, transport infrastructures and ICT, often with the help of the European Structural
Funds.
The relative size and density of SMUA cities should be counterbalanced with the
developing of “city network externalities” (Camagni and Capello, 2004; Johansson and
Quigley, 2004). The embeddedness in networks can provide to firms and people access to a
greater diversity of resources, connections and opportunities beyond the obvious cities’
limitations (Onsager, 2010). The importance of agglomeration externalities –specifically
specialisation and diversity– to innovation, productivity and urban employment growth is
67
Theoretical literature about city competitiveness issues is vast. The most known competitiveness
model was developed in Michael Porter’s “Theory of Competitive Advantage” (1990). But many
others can be identified in different fields, for example, at urban and regional level, see the work of
Begg, 1999; Bristow, 2010; Camagni, 2008; Martin, 2003; Rondinelli et al., 1998; 2005, 2004b.
74
acknowledged, but their benefits “may be shared in networks of cities. A good position of cities
in networks may allow them to ‘borrow size’” (Meijers et al., 2016: 4).
Some recent reports also sustained that many European regions with smaller urban centres,
despite a lower performance regarding population growth, experienced overall higher economic
growth rates and lower poverty levels than the EU average (HESPI and EUKN, 2015; Servillo
et al., 2014) (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Average per capita GDP and population growth of NUTS 3 regions as classified by the
degree of urbanisation in EU context (2001-2011) (HESPI and EUKN 2015; Servillo et al., 2014).
Regarding unemployment rates, which have increased in all EU Member States during the
financial crisis, but especially in Greece and Spain, there is a variety at the regional level.
However, in some countries, there are small urban and rural regions with lower unemployment
rates than large ones combined with good economic performance (Eurostat, 2016) (see figure
5.2).
Figure 5.2 Unemployment rate (persons aged 15-74) by degree of urbanisation (%), 2014 (EU, 2016)
75
Further, not all industries, workers and cities benefit from agglomeration economies. Many
researchers point out that the features of industries but also of the product or industry life cycle
stage and the characteristics of the professionals, particularly in terms of skills, together with,
the diverse circumstances of the cities, have different results in terms of economies of
agglomeration (about this theme, see for example, Combes and Gobillon, 2015; Duranton,
2015).
Thus, looking at the productive system, many SMUA have a profile where economic
activity predominates from agriculture and derived activities to manufacturing, business, and
traded services. The agglomeration of small producers and specialisation in specific sectors or
market niches based on the exploitation of endogenous assets is a strategy commonly chosen
to revitalise the economy of these small economies (Giffinger et al., 2007; Bell and Jayne, 2009;
Costa et al., 2011). Activities related to the high technology industry, higher education, tourism
or cultural and creative industries can be located in the SMUA with an appropriate
infrastructure, and then providing jobs and income to residents as well as contributing to the
innovation in more traditional sectors.
Likewise, the capacity to attract and retain human capital, especially in the form of an
educated, creative and mobile workforce, is also identified as central to the “new urban
economy”, as discussed earlier in Chapter I. Diversity, tolerance, and vitality of the city and its
cultural scene, are some of the characteristics considered essential to attract these professionals
(Landry, 2000; Florida, 2002, 2005). Given these attributes, smaller cities and rural areas could
hardly compete with large metropolises. However, liveability perceptions, i.e., the
considerations about place’s attributes such as environmental quality, security conditions,
health provision, leisure and cultural activities can be a factor of attractiveness.
For example, in the high urbanized England, dominated by the global city of London, a
study of the Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services
in Non-Metropolitan England shows that 56% of England's economic output comes from nonmetropolitan areas and these are responsible for creating a large number of jobs and maintaining
a skilled workforce as well as attracting the headquarters of globally competitive companies.
Some authors like Richard Florida (2005) highlighted that bohemian lifestyle attracts these
professionals when choosing the place to live and work. Other authors, though emphasised the
influence of family reasons and the desire to pursue more peaceful or unconventional lives.
According to McGranahan and Wojan (2007), despite the affinity of creative class and similar
professionals for bohemian lifestyles, given their work characteristics they also have more
flexibility to choose where to work and live. Moreover, many times, quality of life
76
considerations have an impact on these professional’s mobility towards high-amenity locations.
In this sense, the comparative advantages of SMUA is often founded on well-being,
sustainability and quality of life as well as the manifest “character” of the place and strong
community ties.
The relevance of urban environment features and predominantly of amenities has been
analysed by several scholars in the definition of urban policies and how they simultaneously
affect population growth and employment among cities. These approaches started by looking
at the value of natural amenities, climate and landscape (e.g. Ullman, 1954; Graves, 1976), to
later focus on urban amenities such as museums, theatres, conference centres, consumer
conveniences, sports facilities, artistic spaces, etc. (e.g. Florida, 2000, 2002; Glaeser et al.,
2001; Clark et al., 2003; Markusen and King, 2003; Lönnqvist, 2015) (Table 3.2 presents a
proposal for a typology of amenities).
AMENITY TYPE
EXAMPLES
NATURAL
Climate conditions, geomorphological diversity., etc.
Cultural facilities (e.g., museums, cultural centres, art spaces, artistic
HISTORICAL-CULTURAL
residences and ateliers)
Historical, archaeological and architectonical heritage, etc.
Traditional activities, oral histories, lifestyles, etc.
Community groups, associations, social networks, etc.
SOCIAL
Educational, health and social services
Public and recreational spaces
Table 3.2 Typology of amenities.
Adapted from Inteli (2011)
An amenity-based development approach opens opportunities for smaller cities and rural
areas that enjoy unique, authentic and sustainable environments. These are particularly
appealing to retirees and young families seeking healthy, enriching and serene lifestyles, but
also to highly skilled or career changers, artists and creative people looking for alternative
lifestyles to those of the major cities (Mathur and Stein, 2005; Markusen, 2006; McGranahan
and Wojan, 2007; Duxbury and Campbell, 2009; Lewis and Donald, 2010; INTELI, 2011).
Amenities-driven strategies can also be useful in attracting visitors in search of urban and rural
distinctive experiences. As Bell and Jayne argued relocation decisions “are a result of a complex
77
set of considerations often bundled together in concepts like [...] ‘liveability’” (Bell and Jayne,
2010: 211).
However, many studies suggested that even though amenities may be important to
population change and for people’s mobility, other factors assume greater importance namely
job opportunities and personal social relations (Hansen and Winther, 2010) as well as public
policy options (Mulligan et al., 2005).
It is also commonly stressed the need for the existence of a minimum critical mass and
density which will determine the availability of the basic services necessary for the population,
which can come from the dynamism of the surrounding towns or regions or from the proximity
to a relevant urban centre68. Many towns in the area of influence of large metropolis have a
greater chance of attracting daily commuters and families by providing them more suitable
infrastructures and housing conditions, as well as setting up industries that require extensive
and cheaper properties (e.g., retail or industrial parks). Others attract a set of services and
infrastructures and specialised labour in function of their administrative or economic influence
in the region in which they are located. Besides, the strengthen of rural-urban cooperation
present opportunities for balancing economic activity and quality of life aspects in those cities
and surrounding areas.
In small communities, the greater proximity and facility in face-to-face contacts, the ease
identification and involvement of local partners, and community sense are considered as
important social capital resources that strengthen collective action for common purposes and
coordination policy. This capital, among other factors, encourage the implementation and the
legitimation of development projects and the process of transformation.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop specific public policies that take into account the
characteristics, potentialities and challenges of small cities and towns in European context,
rather than uncritically look at best practices and pursue the “metropolitan imaginaries” (Van
Heur, 2010). As highlighted in the report “Cities of tomorrow - Challenges, visions, ways
forward” (EC, 2011b) we shouldn’t underestimate the role and significance of small and
medium-sized cities.
Hence, we emphasize that the analysis of SMUA is not only a question of absolute size or
of their position in the territorial system and urban hierarchies. It should be stressed the
68
Proximity to an important urban centre is pointed out as being a competitive advantage of low
density urban areas in the attraction of talent (anyway, it is one of the characteristics of almost all
European intermediate regions).
78
importance of contextual factors, adopting a “relational approach” (Graham and Healey, 1999;
Healey, 2006, 2007; Lorentzen and Van Heur, 2012), which emphasises interdependencies and
interactions between spatial and functional scales and the dynamics of actors within these
relational contexts. These urban centres, particularly, those in intermediate and rural regions,
could be seen as mediators between the centre and the periphery, urban and rural, or local and
global.
3. Culture and urban development
As announced by Henry Lefebvre, the ongoing urban revolution is concerned with the
transformations that affected contemporary societies where the search for solutions to urban
problems became central in development (Lefebvre, 2003 [1970]). Since the 1970s, as reviewed
before, a series of political-economic events alongside technological progress has outlined the
current stage of development of European cities and regions69. Many of them, confronted with
the decline of their older industrial capacity enter in a period of economic breakdown with high
unemployment and depopulation rates. Moreover, the decline of the Welfare State model and
the expansion of the neoliberal agenda put the entrepreneurial cities at the forefront to
implement public policies for market-oriented economic growth to face competitive challenges
of globalization, and in the European case, the process of integration.
If some of these cities and regions remained vulnerable, others have initiated trajectories of
change to remaking themselves in the transition to a knowledge-based economy. Many local
and regional authorities played “a critical role by mobilising resources, exercising policy
choices and bargaining over capital investment” (Savitch and Kantor, 2002: 25–26) based on
public-private partnerships for the “active production of places” (Harvey, 1989b: 295).
In this framework, and especially since the mid-1980s, culture has received increasing
attention as a priority area for public intervention, revealing a conceptual enlargement and the
dissipation of traditional distinction between high and popular forms of culture, as well as
69
Regeneration policies began in North America in the 1970s with projects such as the redevelopment
of Baltimore’s Inner Harbour, and Boston’s Faneuil Hal and shortly after in Britain (Couch et al.,
2011; Doucet, 2007). The British regeneration programs were at the forefront of this type of urban
policy in Europe, followed by the initiatives of German and French cities. Gradually they spread
throughout the world.
79
between intrinsic and instrumental value. Many European cities have placed culture and cultural
policy at the centre of city’s strategic planning and broader development policies, namely in
promoting competitiveness, stimulating economic growth, jobs creation and, at same time,
improving quality of life. The need to adapt to the socio-economic changes resulting from the
deindustrialization processes motivated many cities to seek ways to reinvent themselves and
find alternative ways to diversify their economic structure and improve social inclusion and
community development, in short, a more sustainable urban development. For this, it has
contributed largely the growing economic relevance of the symbolic and aesthetic value of
goods and services, as well as the spaces where they are created, produced and consumed, the
so-called cultural economy of cities (e.g., Lash and Urry, 1994; Zukin, 1995; Scott, 1997;
2000). As stated by Susan Zukin “with the disappearance of local manufacturing industries and
the periodic crisis in government and finance, culture is more and more the business of cities”
(Zukin, 1995: 1–2).
Also, the entrepreneurial attitude taken by cities in the face of new socioeconomic
circumstances (Harvey, 1989a) had a major impact on the cultural sector. In the context of the
rescaling of governance processes, as explained earlier, the cultural sector and policymakers
have frequently to justify public funding and adopt management measures based on a variety
of performance indicators, as well as to search private funds to increase labour income and
supplement state subsidies.
There is a vast amount of literature on the role of culture in urban development and how
culture-led strategies have become one of the most popular trends in contemporary urban
politics70. However, there is also an enormous difficulty in demonstrating its real relevance and
long-term impacts. It is for this reason that is a source of dynamic complexity that challenge
our understanding of contemporary experience (Sacco et al., 2014).
In an initial period, culture was predominantly used in the framework of urban regeneration
strategies of post-industrial cities. The processes of urban regeneration have spread across
Europe supported by different government’s levels and European programmes. They have been
defined in many ways and comprehend different forms in practice. For example, Chris Couch
described it as the process in which “the state or local community is seeking to bring back
investment, employment and consumption and enhance the quality of life within an urban area”
70
Only to cite a few of them, e.g., Evans, 2005; Evans and Shaw, 2004a; Keating and De Frantz,
2003; Landry, 1996; Lash and Urry, 1994; Miles and Paddison, 2005; Scott, 1997; Urry, 1995; Van
der Borg and Russo, 2005.
80
(Couch, 1990: 2–3). Graeme Evans underlines that it describes the “transformation of a space
that has displayed the symptoms of physical, social and/or economic decline breathing new life
and vitality into the area [and] bringing sustainable, long-term improvements to local quality of
life” (Evans, 2005: 967).
Local authorities across the EU, informed by planners like Charles Landry and Franco
Bianchini started to integrate culture in town planning to achieve key development objectives.
Many of these plans are primarily concerned with the physical and economic regeneration of
obsolete or under-utilised industrial sites or harbour areas; derelict inner cities or
neighbourhoods; neglected waterfronts and old water canals; the requalification of public
spaces; and so on (e.g. Bassett, 1993; Couch et al., 2003; Moulaert et al., 2004; Evans, 2005;
Couch et al., 2011). Progressively, during the 1990s, more integrated approaches to urban
redevelopment were adopted, linking the stimulation of economic activities and environmental
improvements with social inclusion, cultural vitality and quality of life concerns.
A number of cities, which have converted culture into a central element of their
development model, were widely publicized as success stories by a diversity of political actors,
consultants and academics embedded in various networks of communication and interaction.
Among the most disseminated European cases are the Scottish city of Glasgow; the Basque city
of Bilbao; followed by Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield in North of England; Essen, in the
German Ruhr region; Lille and Marseille in France; Turin in Italy; the Dutch city of Rotterdam;
among many other experiences (see, for example, the work of Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993;
Landry, 1996; Couch et al., 2003; Evans, 2005; Doucet, 2007; Couch et al., 2011; Kühn and
Liebmann, 2012).
Many of these approaches were copied and translated into many municipalities, to the
extent that some authors, and even us, described a strange sense of familiarity in some cities
while “sitting in a café looking out on a ‘regenerated’ streetscape of new-old cobblestones and
luxury boutiques patrolled by private security guards, or listening to a mayoral candidate outline
her vision for the future of the local economy, or reading a blog extolling the virtues of a new
planning model” (Temenos and McCann, 2013: 344).
In this framework, culture has collected several understandings with different impacts at
short and longer term. The Graeme Evans and Phyllida Shaw’s study about “The Contribution
of Culture to Regeneration in the UK” (Evans and Shaw, 2004; also in Evans, 2005) distinguish
three approaches:
1) “culture-led regeneration” – in which culture is considered a catalyst and engine of
regeneration, through landmark buildings or art projects, among others;
81
2) “cultural regeneration” - it involves the total integration of culture in the
regeneration process, alongside environmental, social and economic components.
3) “culture and regeneration” - cultural activities or projects, often of small-scale, are
included in regeneration plans, but aren’t an integral dimension of the overall
project.
Analysing the above typology, Jonathan Vickery (2007) suggests a fourth category to this
typology: the “artist-led regeneration”, to distinguish those processes of urban regeneration that
occur with the emergence of artists' scenes, that gradually change the face of neglected spaces
or declined neighbourhoods, contributing to create a certain lively atmosphere, frequented by a
cosmopolitan population and attractive to new business71. The establishment of artists, cultural
and creative producers in degraded or abandoned spaces often start informally in search of
cheaper and more flexible spaces to work and live. As asserted by Ann Markusen “increasingly,
artists, rather than arts institutions, are providing the impetus for making and remaking a city”
(Markusen, 2006, 2013: 8; see also Markusen and King, 2003). In consequence, top-down
strategies promoted by municipal authorities and/or private investor increasing integrated the
allocation of deactivated spaces for cultural activities or creative businesses or the invitation for
interventions in public spaces to artists.
Many of these strategies remind us of the discussion about the practises of this post-modern
era, as we reviewed before, associated to the celebration of pastiche, ephemerality and spectacle
and that have become a feature of urban policies where culture is commodified and experienced.
Seeing culture as a driver, a catalyst or a key component in urban development (Evans and
Shaw, 2004) there are some factors that determine the choices of urban regeneration strategies,
such as Ron Griffiths (1995) summarises: 1) the position of the city in urban hierarchy; 2) recent
experiences of economic and industrial restructuring; 3) the city’s political culture; 4) the
political priorities as result of changing social structure of the city; 5) the pattern of artistic and
cultural organisation; and 6) the opportunities and funding sources available.
The processes of (re)imagining the city are part of the competitive strategies developed by
cities’ authorities to improve urban change. From promotional campaigns to broader place-
71
See, for example, the analysis of Sharon Zukin of the SoHo district of Manhattan, a process of
conversion by artists of former industrial buildings and, subsequently, the attraction of a higher
income middle class seeking to enjoy a “loft-living” lifestyles (Zukin, 1989). See also the analysis
of Mariangela Lavanga about redevelopment projects of four European cities: Amsterdam,
Birmingham, Milan and Helsinki (Lavanga, 2013).
82
making processes, culture has been deliberately manipulated in the context of these new
entrepreneurial modes of urban governance which “attempts to reconcile leisure, business and
community demands and aspirations, in a competitive environment” (Evans, 2003: 428).
“Selling” the city as a cultural resource has become a scheme developed by urban elites to
obtain economic gains and consensus among residents (Kearns and Philo, 1993). Hence, culture
was used as a means to communicate and develop an attractive and distinctive image of places
to enhance the position and the liveability's perceptions of the place, which determine where
people want to live or the places that desire visit. Place-making approaches is also a way of
influencing the representations of the individuals and the communities that inhabit them as well
as to engage citizens in decision-making (Murray et al., 2007; Duxbury, 2014).
In the same vein, many cities have adopted strategies oriented to consumption as a catalyst
for urban renewal and increased tourism activity. Cities started to compete for holding mega
events of international reputation such as exhibitions, festivals, expositions and sporting events,
etc. as well as to attract investments that support the construction of cultural infrastructures,
usually emblematic projects such as prestigious arts centres, theatres and concert halls (see, for
example, Harvey, 1989a; Bassett, 1993; Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993; Costa, 1999, 2002b;
Kong, 2000; Scott, 2004; Vickery, 2007). Other cities turned to community rituals or festive
events (historical events, gastronomic fairs, religious festivals, etc.) based on heritage and local
traditions, but also on contemporary cultural practices such as in art and music field. These
events as symbolic performative practices in the public domain are often used as levers for
economic regeneration but also for community development. Examples of these events
proliferate in European urban cultural policies: from the Christian Easter celebrations in Braga
(Portugal), the Angoulême International Comic Festival (France) to the Edinburgh Music
Festival (Scotland). Most events are hosted to generate economic growth, improve the image
of places, promote local products and resources, and developing tourism activities. But they
also offer opportunities for socialisation and expression of the identities, values and history as
well as the creativity of their communities (e.g. Getz, 1991, 2010; Gursoy et al., 2004; Quinn,
2005, 2009; EC, 2011d; Sassatelli, 2011; Lyck et al., 2012; Laing and Frost, 2016). There are,
however, some negative impacts resulting from these events, especially of environmental nature
due to the inflow of tourists, as well as the risk of loss of cultural authenticity with the
“festivalisation” of traditions and heritage damage (Mccartney and Osti, 2007; Richards and
Palmer, 2010; Richards and Wilson, 2007).
These cultural strategies used for urban development also provided more opportunities for
artistic expression in traditional institutions and unconventional spaces of culture, as well as,
83
contributing to greater access and inclusion of art and culture in daily life, both individually and
in a community. In addition, it is recognised that the presence of artists and creatives produces
an aggregate economic impact on cities (Becker, 1982; Markusen and King, 2003). In addition
to the direct revenues generated by the products and services that are consumed locally and
exported, and the various spill-over effects generated in other sectors, organisations and
individuals, it also acknowledged the entrepreneurship capacity of these professionals, not only
their ability for self-employment but also generate jobs.
Cultural projects have emerged as modes to affirm and reinforce local identity and
strengthen citizens' sense of belonging and pride. The identity of a place is socially constructed
in the encounter with the residents’ subjective perception and sense of belonging – internal
image, combined with the others’ representation of the city – external image (Evans, 2003;
Govers and Go, 2009; Mccarthy, 2006; Miles, 2005). As Miles suggests:
investment in culture is not simply about regenerating the local economy, but can
actually serve to revitalise the identities of the people of a city and even of a region; (...)
it can provide new ways for those people to look into themselves and out of themselves.
In other words, it can reinvigorate the relationship between cultural, place and personal
identity and offer a permanent legacy (Miles, 2005: 921).
The creation of a recognizable identity, commodified in urban communicative strategies is
based on the valorisation of place distinctiveness, which is drawn on the re-creation of particular
cultural and historical aspects that can hardly be reproduced in other places (Turok, 2004). As
Allen Scott explains “culture is a phenomenon that tends to have intensely place-specific
characteristics thereby helping to differentiate places from one another” (1997: 324).
However, as John McCarthy (2006) critically pointed out replicating hegemonic city
images in marketing campaigns can lead to the homogeneity and erosion of its distinctiveness
rather than context-sensitive adaptation. Else, local identities are multiple and sometimes
divergent or conflictual, even within small localities and can be seen as a way to improve a
sense of pride or exclusion.
One of the best-known cultural programs is the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC)72,
formerly known as City of Culture, which became object of intense competition and a way of
promoting the “European project” (García, 2004). The city of Glasgow was the first European
72
The European Capital of Culture programme is an initiative which started in 1985 as an idea of the
Greek cultural minister Melina Mercouri and the French Minister for Culture and Communication
Jack Lang.
84
city to capitalise on such landmark programmes to stimulate the urban regeneration which
resulted in an ambitious cultural programme with an unprecedented level of funding from local
authorities and private sponsors (García, 2004, 2005). Subsequently in 1988, it held the “Garden
Festival”, afterward the title of “European Capital of Culture” in 1990 and subsequent status as
“UK City of Architecture” in 1998.
In the same vein, being part of UNESCO World Heritage List and related programmes is
extremely desirable for cities that aim to contribute to urban development through the
conservation and promotion of cultural and creative expressions.
Numerous studies have criticised some of the conflicts resulting from these consumption
strategies that have had a major influence on cultural policies throughout Europe in the 1980s
and early 1990s, notably between “old and new, social and economic, community and eliteoriented policies” (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993: 3) to obtain and sustain the long-term
benefits. Among the major problems resulting of these policies is the occurrence of forms of
gentrification associated with the valorisation of urban areas under intervention and subsequent
real estate speculation, in which the local culture becomes a commodity to be consumed.
Consequently, low-income people, traditional activities and community routines are gradually
replaced by new activities, tourists and more privileged socio-economic groups (Costa, 2007;
Costa et al., 2011).
Also, it is highlighted the used of culture to legitimise policy interventions, foster
stakeholder involvement, including engagement and participation of the local community (e.g.
García, 2004; Middleton and Freestone, 2008). Further, there is commonly a trend towards a
performance dimension of urban and cultural experience as well as the adoption of international
policy guidelines, many to respond to National and European programmes procedures without
looking at the singularities of local contexts. Among the negative impacts, it is included the
accumulation of large debts for host municipalities in addition to the difficulties of maintaining
or reorienting infrastructures in the long term, the so-called “white elephants” (see, for example,
the analysis of Rius-Ulldemolins et al., 2016).
Therefore, the principal challenge of those policies that combine physical renewal with the
creation of cultural flagships events and facilities is to create a long-term social and economic
base that can maintain the aspirations for all its citizens and economic recovery goals,
international recognition and inward investment and economic growth73. Consequently, many
73
For a critique to cultural mega events and schemes see, for example, Nemeth, 2010; Richards and
Palmer, 2010; Foley et al., 2012; Lyck et al., 2012; Smith, 2012; Müller, 2015, among others.
85
local governments supported arts and cultural projects based on bottom-up and inclusive policy
proposals and multi-stakeholder consultation that improve community engagement and
participation and, therefore, to counter the gap between external perceptions and the reality of
the place.
Over time, governments started to look not only at conventional urban cultural strategies,
most of them based on consumption-driven activities, to focus on non-subsidized sectors of
culture, encouraged by the development of sectoral or industrial approaches related to cultural
and creative activities (Kong, 2000; Swyngedouw et al., 2002; Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris,
2007; Costa, 2008; Barbieri et al., 2012; Tomaz, 2012).
Especially at the beginning of the 21st century, a vast number of papers discussed the role
and relationship of culture and innovation in development processes, complemented later by
the rising discourse on creativity. In this framework, the concept of creativity has gained
particularly notoriety in public policies developed by numerous academics from diverse fields74
and many organisations75. In addition, many countries and regions of the world have come to
promote themselves as “creative”, formulating strategies that advocate that culture, creativity
and creative workers, innovation are the driving force behind their economies within a
competitive global framework76. At European Union level, the creativity approach has gained
wide acceptance. Diverse reports, communications and programmes stressed the importance of
culture in supporting and fostering a creativity and innovation, which in turn, are drivers for
economic prosperity, competitiveness and well-being77.
74
It is impossible to refer all scholars particularly involved with this subject. Just to mention a few of
them, see the work of Allen J. Scott, Charles Landry, Franco Bianchini, John Hartley, John
Howkins, Klaus R. Kunzmann, Pedro Costa, Peter Hall, Richard Florida, etc.
75
Especially OCDE, EC, UNCTAD, COMEDIA, NESTA, KEA, etc.
76
To mention a few examples in Europe: “Creative Britain”
(http:/www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/CEPFeb2008.pdf); “Creative Ireland”
(http://creative.ireland.ie/); Creative Scotland” (http://www.creativescotland.com/); “Creative
Finland” (https://tem.fi/en/creative-finland2); “Creative Brno” (http://www.creativebrno.cz/);
“Creative Austria” (http://creativeaustria.at/); “Creative City Berlin” (http://www.creative-cityberlin.de/en/).
77
Among them, we should mention the EC documents such as “Green Paper - Unlocking the potential
of cultural and creative industries, COM(2010) 183 final”(2010a); “Promoting cultural and creative
sectors for growth and jobs in the EU”, COM(2012) 537 final (2012b); “Boosting the
competitiveness of cultural and creative industries for growth and jobs” (2016a).
86
The study of creativity has been developed from different perspectives78 ranging from the
individual genius, the source of inspiration and its artistic expression to the creative thinking
that allows to generate innovative solutions - a vision, an idea or a product; contingent to sociocultural environment in which it is produced.
In urban policy, the interest in the concept of creativity had different origins and configured
different forms of intervention. Among them, there is the idea of a “creative city” (developed
by authors such as Landry and Bianchini, 1995; Landry, 2000; Hall, 2000; Cooke and
Lazzeretti, 2008; Pratt, 2008), which constitutes the framework and a set of planning tools to
address urban opportunities and problems. Charles Landry (2000) assumed creativity as an
essential element to stimulate the urban fabric dynamics and defined the creative milieu as a
place that contains the necessary requirements in terms of “hard” and “soft” infrastructure to
generate a flow of ideas and inventions. Some cities and regions that have focused their
development strategies on urban regeneration driven by impactful cultural projects found a new
impetus in creativity that allowed them to engage a new range of economic sectors and partners.
Others, because they have insufficient skills and resources to compete in the cultural arena,
have seen creativity as a way to reinvent themselves.
Thus, the narrative about the creative city was developed in articulation with the urban
policies designed to the development of the cultural and creative industries (e.g. Pratt, 1997;
O’Connor, 2000; Cunningham, 2002; Flew, 2002; Garnham, 2005; Galloway and Dunlop,
2006). The potential of these industries to create socioeconomic growth, which combine arts,
cultural and creative goods and services, has gained wide recognition in creative economy
discourses (a concept popularized by John Howkins, 2001). The creative economy agenda has
gained a strong influence in European Union, evoked as one of the most dynamic and resilient
economic sectors of recent years79. Predominantly, it mobilises cultural policy for economic
purposes, harnessed by the development of digital economy, and in interconnection with
innovation policies. More recently, this debate underlines the role of cultural and creative spill-
78
For an extensive review of the concept and theoretical approaches see, for example, Robert J.
Sternberg (ed.) (1999), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; or Kerry
Thomas and Janet Chan (Eds.) (2013) Handbook of research on creativity. Cheltenham: Elgar.
79
According to the TERA Consultants report (2014), the CCI sector represents 6.8% of European
GDP (approximately €860 billion) and 6.5% of European employment (approximately 14 million).
More recently, the study developed by VVA and KMU Forschung Austria (2016) reveals that the
sector, where is included high-end and fashion, represents 7.5% of all employment in the European
economy and generate 5.3% of the total EU gross value added.
87
overs in various sectors of the economy, places and, more broadly, throughout society (Capello,
2009b; TFCC, 2015).
This interest on creativity is intrinsic linked to the notion of “creative class” (Florida, 2002,
2005; Florida and Tinagli, 2004). The economic performance and vitality of cities depends on
their ability to attract a qualified and innovative workforce, the “creatives”. In turn, Florida
maintains that these professionals are attracted to places characterised by a “culture that’s openminded and diverse” (Florida, 2002: xvii). Numerous critiques have been written concerning
this approach (e.g. Peck, 2005; McCann, 2007, 2008). As underlined by Allen Scott “the mere
presence of ‘creative people’ is certainly not enough to sustain urban creativity over long
periods of time. Creativity needs to be mobilised and channelled for it to emerge in practical
forms of learning and innovation” (Scott, 2006: 11).
Cultural and creative activities in development process are strongly linked to the specific
conditions of each territory. Several theoretical approaches and political strategies have been
developed in recent years around localized production systems, based on the agglomeration of
cultural and creative activities, in order to benefit from economies of scale and externalities
(Costa, 2002b, 2008a, 2010; Costa et al., 2011). As Hans Mommaas argued “cultural clustering
strategies” represents a different phase “in the on-going use of culture and the arts as urban
regeneration resources” (Mommaas, 2004: 508).
Several terms have been popularized in the description of the various forms of
agglomeration of cultural production and consumption supported by a set of cultural quarter
policies for cities’ development, urban regeneration or territorial competitiveness
(Montgomery, 2003; Costa et al., 2007). Two major policy perspectives are generally
recognised in the set of measures implemented (Sacco et al., 2009; Romein and Trip, 2009;
2010; INTELI, 2011):
- a consumption milieu or people-oriented approach – centre on the attraction and retention
of artists or creative talents along with skilled individuals, emphasizing the qualities of cities
and recreational facilities. This in turn, appeals to additional investments by companies and the
emergence of start-ups, which will enhance job growth and contribute to rising incomes.
- a production milieu or business-oriented approach – focuses on the creation of measures
and conditions favourable for the development of cultural or creative businesses as generators
of jobs and wealth, such as subsidies or tax incentives;
These approaches are not exclusive and, in fact, most of the times, the political strategies
tend to include both types of measures.
88
As observed by Graeme Evans (2005) culture was always seen as a critical aspect of the
mediation and articulation of community needs with policy objectives of development
strategies. As reviewed by Nancy Duxbury, namely in the analyses with M. Sharon Jeannotte
(Duxbury and Jeannotte, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2012), the integration of culture into urban and
community planning processes has been discussed for a long time, using arguments such as
access, participation, diversity and social cohesion. It has gained more pertinence with the rise
of sustainability concept that seek to reconcile economic goals with the social, cultural,
environment purposes. Although, some development strategies promoted artistic and cultural
projects as anchors for community building and neighbourhood revitalization, culture isn’t
sufficiently recognised as an integral facet of sustainable city policies and practices (see also
Duxbury and Gillette, 2007; Duxbury et al., 2012; Duxbury and Jeannotte, 2012). In
concordance:
Within a sustainable development context, local cultural policies put community
development at the core: culture is both a key tool and a core aspect of the social fabric,
promoting cohesion, conviviality, and citizenship (Duxbury et al., 2016: 9–10).
The identification of the “storylines” of policy narratives can be seen as semiotic method
to give meaning to specific physical or social phenomena in discourse (Hajer, 1995, 2003).
Drawn on this approach, Soini and Birkeland (2014) recognised the different uses in scientific
discourse of “cultural sustainability” concept. They identified seven major types of “storylines”
or narratives: heritage, vitality, economic viability, diversity, locality, eco-cultural resilience
and eco-cultural civilisation. This article was developed as a starting point of the COST Action
“Investigating Cultural Sustainability” (2011-2015) aimed to contribute to the discussion and
operationalization in academic and policy discourse of the cultural dimension of sustainability,
emphasizing the role of culture in local planning.
It is important to focus here not only on practices but also on political discourses on culture
in urban development. These discourses, which are undoubtedly cultural, describe “a specific
set of ideas, concepts and categorizations that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a
particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities”80.
In them, specific imaginaries are selected, retained and reinforced as objects of economic,
80
As noted by Teun Van Dijk, most political actions are largely discursive (Van Dijk, 1997; 2001;
2015). Thus, besides institutional forms of political discourse such as laws and regulations, there is
also other forms, as political propaganda or advertising, political speeches, media interviews and
talkshows, and so on (Van Dijk, 1997).
89
political, or social action (Jessop and Oosterlynck, 2008; Jessop and Sum, 2010; Jessop, 2013)
reflecting actors’ power relations and interests involved in the governance process. Looking at
the political discourses where culture integrated development strategies, materialised in the
interventions and regulations approved, they reflect different meanings on both concepts and
how the problems and opportunities of the city are addressed. These strategies also incorporated
urban imaginaries, often selected or produced by urban elites interested in creating a positive
and stereotyped image of the territories and thus omitting more uncomfortable issues
(Stevenson, 2004; Healey, 2007).
The relation between culture in urban sustainable development process should be analysed
in multiple dimensions. This includes economic efficiency, social equity, environmental
quality, civic participation and cultural expression. As we already sustained, culture is
perceived, concisely, as an instrument to city’s economic growth; to a more inclusive and
diverse society; and to promote sustainable lifestyles and, even industries. Additionally, this
relationship can be enriched with the inclusion of a wider viewpoint that comprehends culture
as a way to develop a sustainable society by “enhancing our cultural competence, our capacity
for cooperation and critical thinking, our openness to diversity, our curiosity” (Culture Action
Europe, 2014, see also Anheier and Hoelscher, 2015).
Despite culture has been acquiring an instrumental role being even more appropriate for
non-cultural purposes in other areas of public political intervention, there is also claims for use
of culture as an end in itself.
Although the discourse on culture related to urban development is essentially dominated by
the imaginaries of the big cities, as we have been referring, some authors recently attempted to
reveal the ability of smaller cities, more peripheral regions or rural areas to develop their
particular narrative in a cultural and creative economy (e.g. Markusen, 2006; Petrov, 2007; Bell
and Jayne, 2009; 2009; Nuur and Laestadius, 2009; Waitt and Gibson, 2009; Lewis and Donald,
2010; Munoz, 2010; Van Heur, 2010; 2012; Selada et al., 2011; Tomaz, 2015). In general, they
commonly criticised the measurement models and techniques that are based on criteria
inadequate to the reality of smaller localities. On the other hand, as Bas Van Heur noted, many
political leaders seem to continue to follow the socio-economic “metropolitan imaginaries”
instead of concentrating on what he describes as the role of culture in everyday life (Van Heur,
2010; 2012). More, he underlines that:
A more progressive take on culture-led policies for small cities [...] should aim to
question these dominant imaginaries by experimenting with new strategies of selection
and retention: by developing new understandings of what constitutes culture in the first
90
place; by including new types of actors; and by developing different indicators to
measure the cultural economy or the creative class. (Van Heur, 2012: 23)
Thus, throughout Europe, small towns and even rural areas, depending on the profile,
location, and institutional arrangements outlined their culture strategies drawn on their
distinctive qualities in order to attract visitors, residents and investments. According to Pablo
Munoz (2010) we can identify some policy priority areas for these cities, namely: 1) education
and talent development; 2) network capacity, concentration of interactions, community
engagement and co-development; 3) quality of life; 4) sustainability; and 5) iconic and
imaginative territories.
In fact, as we will analyse on the next chapter, some local governments are increasingly
supporting initiatives of production and cultural consumption as instruments to guide or to
influence local economic development. Despite the uncertainty of the returns, but looking to
the successful stories, some of them have opted to invest through public funds or in partnership
with private investors in the improvement of local amenities. These are used mainly as an
instrument to attract those segments of the population who seek alternatives to those of large
cities and the increase number of travellers, which consequently will eventually attract more
investment, firms and jobs, at the same time, that enhances the quality of life of their
communities. Among the most common investments are the creation of infrastructures and new
forms of conservation and interpretation of local heritage and culture, such as museums,
theatres, interpretation centres; the organisation of events that celebrate local history and
traditions; the exploitation of natural resources and the construction of infrastructures to support
tourism and recreational activities; and the hosting of renowned cultural foundations or
educational institutions.
Sometimes, these cultural projects are part of the regeneration plans led by some smaller
cities with a strong heritage component as in the case of UNESCO’s programmes. They cover
the whole city and transform it in a museum which sets diverse challenges between conservation
concerns, tourism activities and the city’s daily life.
On the other hand, following the increase awareness of the importance of skills offered by
artists, cultural organisations, and creative professionals to strengthen local economies and as
source of local knowledge spill-overs as well as lively neighbourhoods, many European local
and regional authorities of SMUA included in their strategies specific measures and tools to
encourage cultural and creative production. As we will see ahead, they often offered creative
spaces for convergence and experimentation, such as artistic residencies, live-work houses,
incubators, meeting spaces, research labs. These spaces provide opportunities to collaboration,
91
knowledge exchange, learning between different kinds of people, from the private and the
public sector, that could foster innovative solutions as well as add value to local products and
activities. Besides, it also includes the attraction and retention of talented people through the
provision of artist residency programs, grants, innovative vouchers, among others.
To this purpose, as we said before, it can contribute particularly the potential of digital
technologies, the increasing connectivity and the rise of new business models and flexible forms
of work and live. They allow the emergence of new locations were specialized knowledgeoriented poles can be found (Van Oort and Raspe, 2005; Piccaluga and Cooke, 2007; HESPI
and EUKN, 2015). Among the diversity of European SMUA, some explore these agglomeration
benefits or cluster economy to obtain market scale (Knox and Mayer, 2009), using their tangible
and intangible resources to create value added products and specialised services to niche
markets (Van Heur, 2012).
The difference between cultural and creative activities developed in big cities and small
towns and rural areas is not only a matter of scale (Duxbury and Campbell, 2009). They have
distinctive characteristics because they happen in specific small communities which permit to
push by strong communities’ ties and civic involvement, identity and authenticity values.
Besides, these non-economic dimensions of everyday life are also attractive to talents engaged
in projects with a strong social component or sense of place. Moreover, as advocated by some
authors the cultural and creative sector as well as many knowledge-based activities benefited
of informal alliances and networking between public and private stakeholders “something that
is easier to handle in simpler governance systems that are found in smaller cities” (Creative
SpIN Final Report, 2015). Smaller cities can take advantage of people’s proximity to foster
interactions and collaboration between different local actors.
The European Union has contributed to the dissemination of culture and creativity-related
imageries as engines of development by supporting diverse programmes and networks of
learning and collaboration. They provided opportunities to SMUA develop joint projects with
other cities and regions, mainly related to tourism and to strengthen its international profile,
drawing attention to local resources and cultural identity as well as to develop learning
experiences (Besson et al., 2007). Some examples of these networks are the European Cultural
92
Routes81; the Creative Clusters in Low Density Areas82; the HerO - Heritage as Opportunity83,
the Cittaslow International Network84; HISTCAPE: HISTorical assets and related
landsCAPE85; the CreArt network86; or the Creative SpIN project87.
The most commonly reported critical points are the difficulty in presenting hard evidence
of the long-term contribution of cultural strategies and their multiplier effects on the socioeconomic development of small cities. It is also often referred the disengagement between the
“formula” created by municipal and other political agencies and the inherent “cultural
character” and everyday life of local communities (Evans, 2001, 2011). The culture
development policies and strategies, independently of the city size, are not exempted from
conflicts “between residents and users, gentrifiers and traditional residents, new activities and
traditional activities, night users and day users, and so on” (Costa and Lopes, 2015; also in
Costa, 2008; Costa et al., 2010).
As it will be verified in the next chapter, the diversity of solutions depends fundamentally
on the “initial” situation of each territory. Their historical development trajectory, the cultural
and socio-institutional characteristics of each territory influence the economic performance and
the attitudes of local actors (Scott and Storper, 2007; Costa, 2008; Ascani et al., 2012). As Allen
Scott denoted “culture is a phenomenon that tends to have intensely place-specific
characteristics thereby helping to differentiate places from one another” (1997: 234).
In general, culture offers a way of both understanding and boosting changes (Nylund, 2001)
because it implies the transformation of our collective perceptions and behaviours (Duxbury,
2014). Afterwards, these trends are globally spread and overpass the urban world, although in
an uneven and varied way.
81
Cultural Routes programme was launched by the Council of Europe in 1987. http://cultureroutes.net/
82
Urbact II project focused on creative strategies for low density areas. http://urbact.eu/creativeclusters
83
Urbact II project for historic urban landscapes. http://urbact.eu/hero
84
Movement of cities based on a philosophy of Slow Food. http://www.cittaslow.org/
85
INTERREG IVC project focused on small historic towns and the preservation of rural historic
assets. www.histcape.eu
86
CreArt - Network of cities for artistic creation - project of cooperation and valorisation of
contemporary arts in the framework of the Culture Programme (2007-2013). http://www.crearteu.org/
87
Creative SpIN project (2012-2015) supported by European Programme URBACT focused on spillover effects of creative industries. http://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/creative_spin_final_report.pdf
93
CHAPTER III - BEYOND CAPITAL CITIES AND LARGE METROPOLIS:
ANALYSIS OF FOUR SMALL AND MEDIUM URBAN AREAS
(…) knowledge is understood as a process of always incomplete knowing about
conditions and potentialities affecting the relational lives of those in and around urban
areas (Patsy Healey, Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies Towards a Relational
Planning for Our Times, 2007: 250)
1. Methodological issues in comparative research and case-oriented studies
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the experiences of recent decades in various cities
and towns that call culture to the core of development policies have raised curiosity about the
nature, conditions, and impacts of these. Therefore, there is a particular interested in how the
political processes “through which collective action is imagined, mobilised, organised and
practised to 'make a difference' to urban conditions” (Healey, 2007: 266) as well as in the
multiplicity of interests, actors and resources that are mobilised in these projects and that
marked different trajectories of these cities.
Existing research and theoretical models have been applied predominantly to processes that
occur in major cities due to the greater reach and visibility of their strategies, but mainly to the
belief that these centres have greater capacity of implementation new development paths as a
result of the diversity of human, economic and institutional resources. However, as we
mentioned, there is a growing interest about the reality of smaller cities beyond those larger
metropolises and how they positioned themselves in an increasingly interdependent world.
In this sense, instead of making generalisations on the basis of historical and economic
constraints, we should look at these cities not only in absolute terms but also consider additional
factors for the analysis. For instance, the place of each within their territorial system and urban
hierarchy, along with the interdependencies and functions between urban centres and
surroundings, elements of attractiveness, distinct patterns of development, cultural identities,
etc. In sum, the attempts to identify the SMUA’s development circumstances and opportunities
have been occasional considering the heterogeneity of contemporary urban change process.
Thus, rather than seek to make broader generalisations or construct a general theory, it was
our intention primarily to examine the theoretical propositions that have importance or might
influence the context of those urban centres outside the major metropolises. Hence, the
preference for a case study research is due to the desire to understand and interpret in each of
95
the chosen cases regarding the specific historical, social and political contexts, the way that
culture is understood in development politics and policies. This type of research allows to show
in detail which institutions and actors whose agency has implications for urban governance and
point out perceptions and conflicts of interest that emerge in these dynamics, and from here
draw theoretical implications and lines of investigation for further analysis.
Further, nowadays, culture is increasingly intricate in political-economic practices, being
necessary to examine not only the practices itself but also the discourses that give meaning and
shape them (see, for example, Hajer, 1995). The relationship between the negotiated meanings
and practices depend not only on the specificity of each place but also of the existing
institutional arrangements. This means to look at the vision, strategies and governance modes
proposed as well as the processes operating behind the same. Furthermore, it should be noted
the importance of the case study for understanding the categories of space, as an expression of
social relations as well as of place associated with the ideas of local, location and sense of place
(in this regard see the reflection of Agnew, 2011).
Subsequently, the adoption of a comparative approach became understandable throughout
this work despite the complexity of the same. In addition to the thick description of the various
cases, we propose to identify similarities and differences between cases that can contribute to
the theoretical hypothesis testing or causal mechanisms exposing in the political, economic and
social change process. This knowledge may also help to inform policy recommendations and
to establish a political agenda for small cities. As stressed by Jon Pierre (2005):
An important element of comparative research is not just to isolate causal processes but
also to present the cases as a set of interrelated economic, political, and social processes
embedded in an institutional system. These contextual accounts—some would say
narratives - have very much to offer in terms of the overall Verstehen of the individual
cases” (Pierre, 2005: 456).
Although aware of the difficulties and critics that the kind of research produces, we will
explain the main features of the methodology chosen, the options made in the design of the
research strategy, the selection of cases and the types of data collected and analysed.
As discussed in earlier methodological article, the interest in resorting to comparisons is
not new nor devoid of criticisms (Tomaz, 2013). These have been used since ancient Greece
and are intrinsically linked to the very constitution of the sociological discipline, by the hand
of its founders. However, the main reflection concerning it as a methodological strategy arises
mainly from the late 1960s and early 1970s in the political science (see, e.g., Smelser, 1966,
1976; Teune and Przeworski, 1970; Sartori, 1970; Lijphart, 1971).
96
In general terms, comparative research refers to:
(…) the evaluation of the similarities, differences, and associations between entities.
Entities may be based on many lines such as statements from an interview or individual,
symbols, case studies, social groups, geographical or political configurations, and crossnational comparisons (Mills, 2008).
One of most frequent methodological issues in comparative research is the discussion about
the number of cases to include in the study. In an article recurrently referred of Arend Lijphart
“Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method” (1971), the author introduced Neil J.
Smelser’s thinking (1966) to argue about the differences between scientific methods. Lijphart
distinguished the comparative method from the statistical method - large-N analysis,
considering it especially suitable when there are limited research resources and the investigator
decides to empirically discover relationships between many variables in a reduced number of
cases and many variables - many variables, small N. But, the difficulty of monitoring several
explanatory variables increases the degree of certainty in relations found, what sets up as one
of the main methodological challenges pointed to the comparison method.
In general, is distinguished two types of comparative strategies: variable-oriented and caseoriented, depending on the kind of knowledge that is sought (Ragin, 1987; Ferreira de Almeida,
1994; Porta, 2008). The first approach aims to document generic observations to reach
parsimonious explanations based on the analysis of relations between variables, or rather to
recognize dominant configurations in order to test hypotheses derived from a general theory.
The second approach purposes to develop in-depth knowledge focusing on a small number of
cases. It seeks to comprehend complex units and identify similarities and differences through
dense narratives and, afterward, to discover the causes of a given phenomenon (Ragin, 1981;
Porta, 2008), or even to contribute to developing, validate or reformulate of hypotheses or
theories (Collier, 1991; Sartori, 1994).
Given the object of study, the choice fell on case studies as a strategy for comparative
analysis. Due in large part to the far-reaching nature and dynamism of the core concepts
combined with the assortment of variables to consider which consequently hinders the search
for the systematisation of information and a parsimonious appraisal. Moreover, the choice for
transnational research increases this difficulty, particularly the construction of an analytical
framework of common understanding of categories, concepts or variables that can be measured
in all contexts (Kantor and Savitch, 2010). Although there are attempts to standardise
information at European level, this objective is still far from being achieved, and it is very
97
difficult to obtain appropriate information for comparing different realities on the basis of more
extensive methods, which often leads to incorrect readings.
Although, the case studies already contain implicitly a comparative perspective, they are
increasingly recognised, principally in urban field, as a valid means for “cross-case comparisons
within a single study or research program” (George and Bennett, 2005: 18). As Jan Nijman
(2007) stated the comparative research at urban level aims to develop knowledge,
understanding and confirmation of hypotheses about what is common, but also about what is
specific to each city or urban process. In this essay, the study of urban policies, as we mentioned
before, comprised the systemic analysis of the political processes where a diversity of social
actors is engaged and whose actions have repercussions in the cities’ development.
However, the degree of dissimilarity between the places requires also some reflection.
Cities are unique entities, moving between local circumstances and trajectories defined by a
system of values and practices, on one side; and the wider scales where are embedded, on the
other side. Cities are part of institutional, national or supranational systems that affect local
actions, which also allow some contextual control (Hodson and Maher, 2001; Sellers, 2002;
Bache and Flinders, 2004). Further, European cities share a common agenda, as a result of the
context of change and the need to adapt to an ever more global and knowledge-based economy.
The selection of cases is, thus, another huge task in conducting comparative research. It
should go beyond the criterion of representativeness and be justified by a strong intent to
capture variants with strong theoretical interest (Gerring, 2007). Two types of logics in cases
selection are distinguished by Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune (1970: 31–46). On the one
hand, the comparison between systems that are, as far as possible, similar to each other, i.e.,
share a large number of possible attributes - Most Similar Systems Designs. This option is based
on the Method of Difference described by John Stuart Mill in “A System of Logic” (1843) and
it seeks to achieve greater control of similar variables and, at the same time, isolate the
differences that can point out potential causes. On the other hand, the comparison can be made
between systems that contrast as much as possible - Most Different Systems Designs. This
method is a variation of the Method of Agreement, also developed by Mill, to compare distinct
cases where the same phenomenon occurs. Additionally, Charles Ragin uses Mill’s Method of
Difference to reflect the existence of “multiple conjunctural causation” on comparative analysis
(Ragin, 1987: ix–xi). For this author, the complexity of social phenomena is due not only to the
quantity of variables to consider but because distinct conditions causally relevant can be
combined in various ways (Ragin, 1987: 26). Likewise, it is assumed that an outcome has
multiple causes and a combination of different conditions, or causal factors, can produce similar
98
results in different contexts. Otherwise, distinct causal explanations can be the consequence of
various combinations of conditions or the absence of any conditions.
In the case selection of the cities to compare in this study, we followed several additional
criteria. First, the object of analysis is SMUA of EU member-states. The classification of these
urban centres depends not only on the size and number of inhabitants, but it is mostly contextsensitive, conditioned by “the nature and history of its urban population, as well as its political
and administrative structures for land-use control” (Eurostat, 1992). Criteria and terminology
used differ between European countries, and not all cities and cities with this status have the
same type of responsibility and autonomy. For example, in English nomenclature, there are
several related terms city, town, township, municipality and borough. Instead, in Czech there
isn’t differentiation between city and town, using the term město for both. Similarly, in French
is commonly used the term ville but the smaller local authorities of distinct sizes are called
communes. In Portugal, cities’ size may vary between 2,000 and 600,000 inhabitants, being that
the status of a city, on many times, dependent on historical and cultural reasons and not of the
legal and administrative functions. Even though, most of the local authorities and capitals of
municipalities are cities, i.e. in Portuguese cidades. There are also some municipalities where
such functions are provided by a vila (comparable to a town in English). Therefore, it is not
only a question of nomenclature, but also of differences in the criteria used to designate a certain
administrative category, in this case, the local administration and their attributions and relations
with the different scales of governance within the structure of each country. In this study, it is
considered a SMUA those urban centres between 5,000 and 250,000 inhabitants that correspond
to the local administration.
Secondly, we must take into account the three-level hierarchical classification of the EU
regions - the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) introduced by Eurostat
adopted for statistical purposes and for the assessment of eligibility in the distribution of the
Structural Funds. Although this classification attempts to create comparable units at all
hierarchical levels, firstly based on population size, each level may contain regions that differ
significantly in terms of geographic area, economic strength and administrative importance,
and even socio-cultural and historical conditions (about this see Eurostat, 2011). Most regional
policy is based on NUTS 2 and some indicators are only available at this level of aggregation
and can mask significant differences between regions behind the global average.
99
Following the approach developed by the OECD, the Eurostat published a new typology
for NUTS 3 regions (2010, updated in 201388) that splits it in three types89:
1) predominantly rural - if more than 50% of the total population live in a rural grid cells
it is called predominantly rural region;
2) intermediate - if the share of population living in rural areas is between 20% and 50%;
3) predominantly urban - the rural population is less than 20 % of the total population
(Eurostat, 2010; see the distribution of EU regions types, Figure 6.3).
Figure 6.3 Urban-rural typology for NUTS 3 regions. (Eurostat, 2012: 197)
88
89
Regulation EC No. 1319/2013 of 9 December 2013, used from 1 January 2015.
This typology is based on the definition of urban in opposition to rural grid cells of 1 km² each. The
type of region depends on the share of the regional population living in rural grid cells. Each urban
grid cells have a minimum population density of 300 inhabitants per km² and a minimum
population of 5,000. The population living outside these urban areas is considered as rural.
100
Taking the universe of European cities and towns, we decided to choose those located in
intermediate and predominantly rural regions given their special function in European
development and planning as mediators between the centre and periphery, the urban and rural,
or the local and global. This location is also reflected in the kind of perspective to develop.
Thirdly, it is also useful to consider the spatial, political and cultural framework of SMUA
to understand how certain conditions, such as the evolution of institutional and regulatory
arrangements or cultural traditions in the Member States influence the elaboration of cities'
strategies (Faludi, 2004; Healey, 2007; Getimis, 2012; Reimer and Blotevogel, 2012).
Thus, starting from the location of cities within a larger macro-regional context, different
sub-regions can be distinguished in the European context, which corresponds not only to spatial
classification but also to mental categories based on preceding historical and political subregions: Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe and Western Europe. Others
consider five sub-regions that correspond to a spatial but also mental category of the historical
and political division of Europe, namely: Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe,
Central Europe and Northern Europe (Avdeev et al., 2011).90
On the other hand, we can study the different types of political systems and models of
governance existing in the EU Member States and in which urban actors and politics are
integrated. According this, Farinós Dasí and others (2006) distinguished between two major
groups:
1) Federal States; and
2) Unitary States.
Within this second group, they identified the following three types of models:
a) Centralised – where regional levels or authorities are defined for administrative
reasons and are subordinated to Central Government;
b) Decentralised – in result of the devolution of competences and powers to local
authorities or inter-municipal co-operation bodies;
c) Regionalised – characterised by regional governments with a certain degree of
autonomy (Farinós Dasí et al., 2006, see the mapping of the different models in Europe
in Figure 7.3)
90
See the classification of ISO International Organisation for Standardization.
www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/english_country_names_and_code_elements.h
tm
101
Figure 7.3 Models of State. ESPON Project 2.3.2 (Farinós Dasí et al., 2006)
In a different way, the research developed for Ismeri Europa and Applica (2010) offers a
typology to verify the location of cities in national decision-making structure. Drawn from the
classification of EU government systems, the typology establish in this research aims to
describe the distribution of powers and responsibilities between government’s levels relating to
the financial dependency of local authorities (see Table 4.3).
102
Table 4.3 Classification of EU countries according to state systems, competencies and local
autonomy. Based on the study carried out by Ismeri Europa and Applica for DG Regio (2010).
But despite the assortment of models based on the type of State intervention, that oppose
more or less centralised systems and higher or lower (in)direct State support, there has been in
recent years a general trend towards decentralisation91 and désétatisation, where other sectors
of society are increasingly called upon to intervene, especially in cultural field (Klamer et al.,
2006).
Connexions between national contexts and diverse traditional cultural policies approaches
can also be established as observed in Chapter 1. In this field, we benefit of the information
provided by the Compendium Cultural Policies in Europe, a jointly project of the Council of
Europe and ERICarts92 and official government documents. At the local level, statistical data
available are reduced and more demanding to obtain.
This introduces the discussion of another challenging research issue. A more rational and
systematic approach, through formal models and hard evidence, has been advocated by a range
of political agents but also academic researchers to inform the processes by which public
policies are formulated, and public investments are allocated. In contrast, other authors have
91
Decentralisation is a multifaceted concept. In general, designates a process of transferring authority
and responsibility from central government to lower governments levels or quasi-independent
government organisations and/or the private sector. Three types are commonly categorised:
deconcentration, delegation, and devolution (Rondinelli et al., 1983, 1989; Schneider, 2003).
92
See http://www.culturalpolicies.net
103
criticised this type of approach by focusing mainly on quantitative indicators and the evaluation
of results, rather than on the elements of the process, which are considered inadequate to explain
how these policies or strategies are designed and implemented and omits the motivations behind
policymaking and the premises in data selection.
In the same vein, this discussion has occurred in culture and development strategies
research (e.g. Evans, 2005; Madden, 2005; Belfiore, 2009; Carnwath and Brown, 2014; De
Marchi et al., 2014). On the one hand, it encourages evidence-based research and data collection
that can quantify, for instance, the value of cultural projects and activities that can contribute to
legitimising political action and public funding. On the other hand, some authors call the
attention upon the difficulty of apprehending the complexity of cultural phenomena or
contextualise development events. A more positivist approach alleges a hypothetic sense of
objectivity that masks the embedded and intangible values and centres on indicators that can be
measured and compared such as economic costs and revenues or audience attendance
indicators. As a result, “social problems become decontextualized and simplified in order to
generate unambiguous policy solutions” (Stanhope and Dunn, 2011: 277).
As identified by Madden (2005) this problematic is even greater when data are used for
comparative purposes, raising questions related to 1) data production, availability and quality;
2) the non-standardisation of data collection across countries; 3) variances in the definitions,
classifications and methodologies in diverse aspects of culture analysis across different national
cultures; 4) structural inconsistencies, such as the policy and bureaucratic structures that shape
and implement cultural policies; 5) the presentation of data without a well-defined context;
amongst other difficulties.
Therefore, throughout this research, we sought to articulate the theoretical knowledge
already produced with the empirical material collected and analysed with “sociological
imagination” in the sense given to it by C. Wright Mills (1959) that emphasises that sociological
practice must recognise the importance of seeing the connections between social structure and
individual experience and agency.
In this study, we claimed as Anthony Giddens that social research “no matter how
mathematical or quantitative, presumes ethnography” (Giddens, 1991: 219). Thus, the
reflections made in each case derive in part from the observation of the social contexts during
the study visits made in different periods, the formal and formal conversations and interviews,
as well as the diversity of documents analysed. The study visits permitted to observe and
participate in events, mapping and getting to know relevant institutions, maintain formal and
informal conversations with the local community and key informants that could provide some
104
different aspects within the complexity of this research issue. In Óbidos and Jyväskylä it was
also possible to participate in local groups’ discussion, which was a requirement of the
European URBACT programme (called Local Action Groups) as well as study visits integrated
in conference meetings, events and reunions regarding local development.
The semi-structured interviews organised around a set of predetermined open-ended
questions were performed with a diversity of key informants and included from managers from
public and private organisations, government officers to cultural workers (observe Table 5.3;
see also the interview guide in Annexe A).
CATEGORY
SUBCATEGORY
SCALE
Member of a public department
Member of a non-departmental public organisation
Public
Member of a public cultural
National level
Member of an educational institution
Member of a public company or agency
Member of a private cultural organisation
Private
Businessman or member of a business organisation
Member of an interest group
Intermediate level
Cultural or creative entrepreneur
Member of an association
Opinion maker
Civil Society
Agents of change
Member of a community group
Local level
Artists or cultural worker
Citizen
Table 5.3 Categories of actors
For reasons of privacy, many citations inserted in the text, taken from interviews conducted
do not present the name of the interviewees, but only the category to which they belong, except
in the case where they allowed it. Despite the difficulty of obtaining some interviews, due to
the availability of some actors or the linguistic barrier (especially in the Czech Republic), we
tried to cover a diverse group of interviewees that could support a wider vision and distinct
perspectives. The formal interviews were recorded, transcribed and after that were analysed to
produce inferences about the same. Several informal talks were also held over the years with
105
many individuals who could clarify some questions about the issues raised in each case (see
Annexe B to more detailed information about the official interviews made in each country).
During these years, it was also possible to participate in several major meetings and
conferences that allowed me to discuss and obtain more knowledge about development and
cultural strategies and policies of the different countries and places, with a broad range of
people.
These techniques were complemented by quantitative methods of data collecting provided
mainly by official statistics aiming to capture structural features of each community and obtain
measurable elements of its relation to other units and levels.
Other secondary data were also collected in the research project that range from printed and
online documents (papers, books, journals, press releases, web pages, memoranda, etc.) to
images and video materials or geographic data. Like others, these documents were reviewed
and interpreted to synthesise data, produce meaning, improvement understanding, and develop
empirical knowledge about the cases.
Certain information had increasing difficulties to get as we converge to the local level,
especially regarding cultural statistics. Often these are insufficient, non-existent, or even
questionable due to the methodologies used.
We are aware that the reflections and considerations made about the places, processes and
actors are in part based on the viewpoint expressed by the individuals to which we add our own
perception. This is informed by the theories reviewed, our interpretation of hidden meanings
and as well as on what is just verbalised off the record.
As said by João de Almeida and José Madureira Pinto “there is no observation without
categorisation of the observed and, therefore, without reference to (previous, albeit
reformulable) elements of an ideological or theoretical nature, that the data are ‘captured’, i.e.,
that is not the reality itself nor its passive recording, transpose and impose significations and
constitute results starting points of scientific practice” (1975: 382)
Finally, having in account these approaches and in order to compare local circumstances
in different national contexts, inside European Union sub-regions, along with the ongoing
processes of decentralization and local government autonomy, we selected four case studies:
Český Krumlov (Czech Republic); Óbidos (Portugal); Jyväskylä (Finland); and York (England,
United Kingdom). The following table summarises the cases selected and the main components
of classification (see Table 6.3).
106
State model
European
State model
NUTS 3
Urban/rural
Total of
Country
(Ismeri and Applica
SMUA
subregion
(Espon 2006)
regions
typology
inhab.
2010)
Unitary State
Jihočeský
‘new’ Member
kraj
Republic Decentralised
State
(South
Central
Predominantly Český
13,290
Czech Unitary State
Medium to low
Bohemia)
Europe
rural
Krumlov (2012)
(CZ)
autonomy of local NUTS 3 code
governments
CZ031
Keski-Suomi
Decentralised Unitary ‘Northern’
(Central
Northern Finland Unitary State State
Predominantly
134,802
Finland)
Jyväskylä
Europe (FI)
(towards
High autonomy of
rural
(2014)
NUTS 3 code
regionalised) local governments
FI193
Unitary State
Oeste
‘old’ Member State
11,763
Southern Portugal Centralised
Predominantly
(West)
Medium autonomy
Óbidos (2012)
Unitary State
Europe (PT)
NUTS 3 code rural
of local
PT16B
governments
Unitary State
United
‘old’ Member State York
Western
Regionalised
Intermediate
198,000
Kingdom
Medium autonomy NUTS 3 code
York
Europe
Unitary State
region
(2011)
(UK)
of local
UKE21
governments
Table 6.3 Case studies selected according their political and administrative system
2. An empirical model for a relational analysis
To adequately investigate culture development strategies, it is proposed a relational
analysis93. The relational approach attempts to capture the dynamic network of relationships at
multiple spatial scales and timescales where localities are embedded and that shape urban
development and policymaking.
The complexity of the object of study led us to the necessity of building an analytical model
that puts in evidence the complex and intertwined web of relations where political processes,
actors and contexts are embedded. At same time, this model creates a basis to collect and study
the information that allow to clarify the specificities and variations in a comparative framework.
93
See, for instance, Mustafa Emirbayer (1997), also with Ann Mische (1998); Stephen Graham and
Patsy Healey (1999); Patsy Healey (2006, 2007); Kevin Ward (2010); Pierpaolo Donati (2010,
2013); Scott Eacott (2018); among others.
107
Thus, we will consider three broad dimensions of analysis, which in turn are constituted by
a set of analytical categories considered more critical to the study (Figure 8.3, author’s
elaboration).
Figure 8.3 The relational model
As the different components under analysis are interconnected and overlap, it is extremely
difficult to clearly distinguish their limits and to examine them individually. For example, it is
not possible to describe the governance models without mentioning the actors and power
relations involved, as well as to discuss the socio-cultural environment it involves mentioning
the policy options and implementation models.
Firstly, to capture the contextual richness
of each case study, it will require an in-depth
understanding of the socio-cultural, economic
and
political
environment
in
which
stakeholders operate and local strategies are
designed (Figure 9.3).
It includes a description of the politicaladministrative system of each city or town
which helps to understand the circumstances
and constraints to political action, besides
evaluating the resources and facilities to
design the local development strategy. It also
Figure 9.3 Context Analysis
describes the main sectors and entities of production and exchange of goods and services given
108
that culture is increasingly used for non-cultural proposes in development strategies. It
evidences the administrative organisation, leading institutions and legislation related to culture,
urban development and planning policymaking, considering the relationship between State and
markets. A special attention is given to the socio-demographic variables, the social and cultural
organisations, the historical and cultural legacy, among other factors. It also takes in account
the physical environment of the settlements (i.e., the geographic location, climate, landscape,
accessibility, etc.) to contextualize the relationship between economic activity and sociocultural environment.
Secondly, the analysis of policy processes
should elucidate the ways and means in which
the preferences of citizens are translated into
effective policy choices (Kohler-Koch 1999).
It includes the study of rules or principles that
influence the management of culture and
planning and development programs (Figure
10.3). Further, it exams the relation between
policies and governance models, to appraisal
the relationship between public authorities’
intervention and the variety of other actors
involved in both policy formulation and
Figure 10.3 Process analysis
implementation. Besides, it should also consider the policy instruments, such as taxes and
subsidies, in addition to the modes of coordination and implementation to achieve policy goals
and outcomes. It enquiries about the power and resources of each actor/collective actor and the
type of interactions performed, namely: hierarchical, market and networks ways of allocating
resources and co-ordinating and implementing public policy (Kaufmann et al., 1986; Thorelli,
1986; Rhodes, 1996; 1997, etc.). In the hierarchy type, the political process is understood as the
execution of authority and control mechanism by central government or local governments. In
turn, market governance introduces market principles such as competition and price and private
sector management methods in public sector. Alongside the market and the hierarchy, networks
have emerged as a form of governance characterised by non-hierarchical and complex modes
of collaboration, cooperation, and/or competition.
Once more the particularities of each political and institutional context influence the
political orientations and practices. For instance, it is important to observe factors that could
109
put in question the continuity or the nature of interventions such as the political election cycle
or political elite’s commitment with development goals.
Thirdly, the analysis of the constellations
of actors is a central factor of any governance
perspective. It alludes to government actors
but also all the private and civil society actors
implicated and excluded from the political
process. It also discusses the influence of
political leadership, agents of change, interest
groups, and experts, among others. Moreover,
it scrutinises the discourses employed by the
distinct actors – repertoires of meaning: how
they are produced, negotiated and performed
within power relations (Figure 11.3). Again, in
Figure 11.3 Actors analysis
the analysis of actors, factors such as a great
State control or the involvement of private actors in the political decision-making processes,
which play various interests and powers, affect the priorities and strategies chosen by actors.
Also, they are influenced by the participation of civil society in decision-making which is
related to the political culture of each country and with the experience of exercise of citizenship.
Furthermore, given that contemporary process of development and policymaking that occur
in multiple and overlapping scales (Amin, 2002; Hubbard et al., 2002; Martin and Miller, 2003;
Healey, 2007) it was necessary to collect information and evidence that exposes the interplay
between the following levels:
1) Local level – it includes the examination data obtained by the methods described above
at municipal level.
2) Intermediate level – it covers the evaluation of programme documents and interviews
and meetings with Managing Authorities and/or intermediary bodies, among others
that were responsible for agenda planning and implementation of local projects at
national/regional level.
3) Transnational level – it reviews EU policy and programs and other relevant data.
To sum up, the interest in comparing case studies lies in the possibility of combining more
analytical interpretation, through dense narratives and using several variables (Landman, 2003;
Porta, 2008). At the same time, discovering factors of change and possible causal relationships
(Sellers, 2002; Pierre, 2005; Kantor and Savitch, 2010). Through the model presented here, it
110
is intended to guide the analysis in each case study in order to obtain those thick narratives that
highlight the relations between the political processes, actors and contexts inherent to the
cultural and urban development policies. And, in this way, to increase our understanding about
the same and evaluate the specificities or regularities of the cases presented.
3. Case studies analysis and key findings
a. Český Krumlov, South Bohemia, Czech Republic
Context analysis
The Czech Republic is a parliamentary republic of Central Europe with 10,512,419
inhabitants (2014), bordering Poland, Germany, Austria and Slovakia.
During the more than 1,000-year history, these Czech lands suffered several significant
political and societal changes with implications in the configuration of the politicoadministrative system.94 Restricting ourselves to the most recent period of history, the path to
a modern and democratic Czech nation-state began to be traced after the end of the totalitarian
communist regime, followed by the dissolution of the union with Slovakia on 1 January 1993
and the beginning of the negotiation process to join the EU in July 1997. The institutional and
public administration reforms performed, attempt an increasing decentralisation of the political
and administrative system and a free market economy, with the stimulation of private property
and commercial activities (Sucháček, 2008; Hladík and Kopecky, 2013).
Today, the Ministry of Regional Development is the central state administrative authority
responsible for the definition of the regional policy and spatial planning, among other issues.
Until the accession to the European Union in 2004, the Czech Republic was divided up into
regions (in Czech: Kraje) corresponding to the EU NUTS 3 level95. After that, they introduced
94
The Czechs founded the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Premyslide dynasty, which ruled Bohemia
and Moravia from the 10th to the 16th century.
95
The last administrative reform operating since 2000 established 14 regions: Praha (Prague),
Jihoceský (South Bohemian), Plzenský (Pilsner), Karlovarský (Karlovy Vary), Liberecký (Liberec),
Ústecký (Ústínad Labem), Stredoceský (Central Bohemian), Vysocina (Vysocina),
Královehradecký (Hradec Králové), Pardubický (Pardubice), Moravskoslezský (Moravia-Silesian),
Olomoucký (Olomouc), Zlínský (Zlín), and Jihomoravský (South Moravian).
111
one more level between the country and the regional level that corresponds to the NUTS 2 level:
the “cohesion regions”96, which is the most used for the allocation of EU funds. Below the
NUTS levels, there are two LAU (Local Administrative Units) levels which are: the LAU 1
corresponding to 77 districts (in Czech: Okresy) and the LAU 2 with 6,249 municipalities (in
Czech: Obce).
Until the publishing of “Principles of Urban Policy” (2010), the urban policy was an integral
part of the Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic. This document established
the conceptual framework for the development of a sustainable urban policy in agreement with
European key documents. It also underlined the importance of cities as development poles and
the specific national settlement structure with a relatively small number of the major cities and
a significant proportion of small and medium-sized towns (MRD CR, 2010).
In fact, the majority of the municipalities has a population of fewer than 500 inhabitants
which made of smaller towns an essential element of development and coordination between
urban and rural areas (Kašparová and Půček, 2009). In general, the “město” (city/town)
corresponds to a municipality which historically has gained the town status (Sýkora and
Mulíček, 2013) and which is responsible for local development on issues like management of
municipal assets and the local budget, social work, public order and the municipal police, water
supply, local public services, town and municipal cultural institutions, etc.
Evidently, Czech cultural policy has been shaped by the historical events, some of them
described above. Until 1989, the dense network of the cultural facilities was controlled by the
state due to ideological purposes (Petrová, 2015; Zaková, 2013). Today, the Ministry of Culture
is the central State administrative body responsible for the arts; cultural activities and
monuments; educational activities and related issues.
In the 1990s, a process of restructuring the cultural sector at the national level began with
the adoption of a new set of regulations for cultural support in the Czech Republic. The principal
government document in this area was the “Strategy of Effective Cultural Support ratified by
Government Decree of the CR No. 401” in 1999. Later, the adoption of “Decree no. 1452” in
2008 delivers the guidelines for the “National Cultural Policy 2009-2014” where culture is
described as “a sector that can play an essential role in the development of Czech society in the
future and a sector where the economic, environmental and social development of the state is
supported” (MC CR, 2009: 9).
96
The Czech cohesions regions are Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, Central Bohemia,
Central Moravia and Moravia-Silesia region.
112
In the “Strategy of Regional Development of the Czech Republic 2007-2013” issued by the
Ministry of Regional Development, culture is one of the seven priority areas chosen. These
priorities are subscribed by regions in their development programs, as in the case of South
Bohemia Region. On it, it is emphasised the objective of using their natural and cultural
resources for tourism and foreign cooperation relations97. It is also stressed that: “(…) all
strategies at a regional level or the national level should be the link to the European strategies
and with EU definitions”.
Thus, following the European agenda, cultural and creative sector became an object of the
attention of the Czech Ministry of Culture, which together with the Art Institute - Theatre
Institute (Institut umení - Divadelní ústav)98 launched in 2011 some pilot projects in six Czech
cities. The research findings were published in “Czech Cultural and Creative Industries
Mapping (2011–2015)” (ATI, 2015) and helped to make more visible this CCIs conceptual
framework. However, as referred by one of the interviewees “these projects are managed by
the people from state organisations, and they are not prepared to deal with them” (Member of
a non-departmental public organisation 1). Thus, at the regional and local level, the discourse
about CCIs is still embryonic, and few cities choose to develop a strategy to support them.
More recently in April 2015, the government approved the “Resolution No. 393” which
outlines the “State Cultural Policy for 2015–2020 (with outlook up to 2025)” (MC CR, 2015)99.
This document states that regions should support cultural development from their budgets and
meet the objectives of the special regulations. The guidelines proposed in this document, as
exposed by representatives of some national and regional public institutions, did not produce
effective strategic measures on regional and local cultural policies and are restrict to more
traditional cultural fields, as observed in interviews:
These documents are contingent of the political cycle (…) only the cultural heritage in
connection with the tourism is supported and strategically considered (…). Nowadays,
the state grant system for NGOs and independent projects in other cultural field is the
main object of cuts (Member of a non-departmental public organisation).
97
http://www.kraj-jihocesky.cz/foreign/eng/develop.php
The main mission of the Art Institute - Theatre Institute is to provide the Czech and foreign public
with comprehensive services in the field of theatre and partial services from other artist areas
(music, literature, dance and visual arts). For more information see http://www.idu.cz/cs/
99
For a list of cultural legislations:
http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/czechia.php?aid=52&curln=100
98
113
The Czech Republic is constituted by 73-82% of rural land areas (depending on the criteria
used) occupied by only 27.02 % of the total population. The region of South Bohemia (in Czech:
Jihočeský Kraj, NUTS 3) - where the city and district of Český Krumlov are located - has a
total of 637,460 people (2011 census) living in the region, and consists of seven districts.
Classified as predominantly rural (according to the urban-rural typology applied to EU NUTS
3 regions, Eurostat, 2012), it shows the lowest population density in the country. Although more
than a quarter of the inhabitants live in the České Budějovice District, which is also the regional
and administrative capital (see Figure 12.3, see also Annexe C).
Figure 12.3 Location of South Bohemia Region and Districts
One of the smallest districts of that region and all country is Český Krumlov (LAU 2)
divided into 46 municipalities and with a total of 61,065 inhabitants (2016).100 The Český
Krumlov District is characterised by its rural character and low-density urban areas counting
with variable landscapes, from forests, lakes, fish ponds, meadows, crop fields and small towns
and villages. The extended natural ecosystem includes the Protected Landscape Area Blanský
and part of the Šumava National Park and Reserve, a national and UNESCO protected
biosphere reserve. Throughout the district, we find many landmarks such as the Cistercian
100
https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/home
114
monastery of Vyšší Brod or the Zlatá Koruna monastery, places of pilgrimage of the South
Bohemia region.
The capital, with the same name, has the status of a “municipality with extended powers”.101
With only 13,290 inhabitants (Czech Statistical Office, 2012), it is categorised according to its
urbanisation degree as an intermediate density area.102 Situated 25 km south of the regional
capital, at 220 km from Prague and just 70 km of Linz, in Austria. This geographical location,
adjoining on the Austrian border, has shaped its history and its past and future development.103
It is managed by the Municipal Authority which serves as an administrative tool of the local
government representatives (Figure 13.3).
Figure 13.3 Český Krumlov District, Municipality and City
The medieval town grew mostly due to its privileged geographic location at a ford of an
important east-west communication route, the Vltava River, that contributed to the flourishing
of the region as an important craft and trade centre as well as a cultural reference.
101
According to the Electronic Portal for Local Government: “Municipalities with extended powers
perform state administration in delegated power in the territory of other municipalities as well, it
means for municipalities, which belong to their administrative district”. Retrieve from
https://www.epusa.cz/index.php?platnost_k=&sessID=0&jazyk=en&pou=698
102
Area: 1,615.08 km² – Density: 37.8 inhabitants/km². Source: Czech Statistical Office, 2015.
103
According the new degree of urbanisation classification (see Dijkstra and Poelman, 2012)
115
At this point, it is important to refer, briefly, some of the most crucial periods in the history
of the city with resonances in existing urban infrastructure and culture. The first owners of the
town and castle were the Lords of Krumlov (up to 1253) that used the green five-petalled rose
as their family crest. However, the major developments of Český Krumlov are connected to the
Rosenberg family (in Czech: Rožmberk) who received this territory from the King of Bohemia
Václav II in 1302 and made it its residency for 300 years. The previous Rosenberg generations
conquered an influential social and political position among the noble families in Bohemia.
Český Krumlov grew economically, and the social and cultural life has flourished having in its
core the Castle104, rebuilt in a resplendent Renaissance Style.
In the 15th century, the inner town already presented its current configuration and
administrative organisation. Later, in the late 17th century, under the Eggenberg family
authority, it was built the Castle Baroque Theatre. This was renovated almost a century later
under the possession of the House of Schwarzenberg (1719-1947), purchasing their current
appearance. Many renovations were carried out in the Baroque period (17th-18th), and many
buildings in the city were decorated in Baroque style.105
A significant period of the city's history occurred after 1850 when Český Krumlov became
the newly established district's centre of administration, economy and culture. The first
elections for the civilian organs of the municipal council gave the victory of the liberal faction
German that promoted the predominance of the German language and the privileges of the
monarch family until 1949.
At the beginning of the 20th century, about 9,000 people lived in the city and the castle had
been abandoned when the last owner, Dr Adolf Schwarzenberg went for exile in 1939. The
Nazis occupied his possessions until 1947, the date on became a property of the Czech state,
and later nationalised (Jakab and Bedrich, 2009). Hence, after the two “World Wars” in which
the city suffered no major damage, the German population was expelled. The communist
government largely ignored the city, and it was only after the “Velvet Revolution” in 1989 that
the restoration of Český Krumlov became a priority for Czechoslovakia.
The remarkable Castle designated National Monument in 1989, the urban structure of wellpreserved Renaissance and Baroque burgher houses, with exceptional layouts and architectural
details led to the city to obtain of the highest national historic monument preservation status in
1963 (Figure 14.3).
104
105
About the Castle history see http://www.castle.ckrumlov.cz/docs/en/zamek_oinf_histor.xml
For more details see http://www.encyklopedie.ckrumlov.cz/docs/en/mesto_histor_himeck.xml
116
Figure 14.3 Details of the renovated facades of historic centre (author’s photos).
The historic inner centre framed by the Vltava River and the surrounding natural landscape
offers an inspiring and unique character atmosphere very attractive to many artists throughout
the centuries such as the painter Wilhelm Fischer or the Austrian Egon Schiele. Even today
some entities promote exchange programmes between Czech and foreign artists such as Arts
and Theatre Institute, a national state organisation that organizes artist’s residencies at the Egon
Schiele Art Centrum106, the Czech Ceramic Design Agency107 and Milkwood organisation108.
In 1992, Český Krumlov Historic Centre was also included in the UNESCO World Heritage
List109 after a process regeneration of two decades as we described later (Figure 15.3).
Perpetuation a long, rich theatrical tradition in the city there are many theatres such the
Town Theatre110 or the palace’s Revolving Auditorium111 in addition to other cultural facilities
like museums and galleries (e.g., Regional Museum112, Museum Photo Studio Seidel113 or
Museum of Puppetry114). Moreover, the city offers leisure and sports activities opportunities as
106
http://www.schieleartcentrum.cz/en/
http://www.virtual-gallery.cz/uk/index.htm
108
http://www.milkwoodinternational.org/about.php
109
Nomination No. 617. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/617/documents/
110
Městské Divadlo Český Krumlov http://www.divadlo.ckrumlov.cz/docs/en/mdck.xml
111
http://www.otacivehlediste.cz/?lang=en
112
Regionální muzeum v Českém Krumlově http://www.muzeumck.cz
113
Fotoatelier Seidel http://www.seidel.cz/docs/cz/seidel_home.xml
114
Marionette Museum http://www.mozart.cz/muzeum-marionet-o-nas.php
107
117
Figure 15.3 Image of Český Krumlov with the castle and palace at the back (author’s photo)
well as highly attended cultural events such as the Five-Petalled Rose Celebrations, and the
Festival of Baroque Arts enrich the town social and cultural life.
Český Krumlov has never been an industrial centre and consequently did not suffer the
resulting effects. Small industries began to develop about 1830s in paper production, spinning
mill, graphite and furniture production. Today, the industrial sector, mainly composed of small
firms in manufacturing, crafts and construction-related services, only represents 9,3%, and the
key economic sectors the retail and service industries (MF CR, 2015). The increment of visitors
(approximately 1.2 million visitors/year)115 has made of the tourism sector indisputably one of
the most important drivers of local development.
Process analysis
After a period when the centre of the city was devoted to a state of increasing abandonment,
its restoration became a national priority. This process of urban renewal, which began in 1971,
115
http://infoservis.ckrumlov.info/docs/en/ad2008022101.xml
118
accelerated in the 1990s after the fall of the communist regime and later with the bid for
UNESCO's world heritage.
The elected democratically administration of Český Krumlov made huge real estate
acquisitions in order to restore the destroyed city centre. The Mayor at that time, Jan Vondrouš,
discarded attractive offers from German and Austrian developers who wanted to buy entire
blocks of historic buildings, giving their residents low-cost loans for rebuilding their own homes
and businesses (Vondrouš, 2008). In 1991, the Český Krumlov administration established a
business company, the Český Krumlov Development Fund to manage the future developments.
By 1995 and 1996, already 80% of the houses in the old town was rebuilt, and the town thrived
off both the tourist industry and the paper mill.
The first strategic development plan of the city was initially developed with the help of
external consultants116 and later, further elaborated by representatives of municipal authorities,
major institutions and companies. Since that time, the successive strategic plans in addition to
the city plan and the city’s budget have become the most important tools for defining the
development vision and priorities. The last strategic development plan developed “Strategický
plán města Český Krumlov” (MČKrumlov, 2008) presents the vision of the City based on its
unique historical and cultural heritage in the perpetuation of the previous ones. It emphasises
the quality of the cultural offer in addition to the already recognised heritage, to promote the
city's image, tourism, economy and external relations. The plan also includes the development
of infrastructure and services to address the needs of residents and visitors (MČKrumlov, 2008).
But, it should also notice an absence of a well-defined culture concept in the definition of the
priorities and cultural policies. As part of UNESCO programme procedures, the municipality,
with a set of consultants, developed a “Management Plan pro historické centrum města Český
Krumlov - Management Plan for the historic centre of Český Krumlov” (2010, 2009) which
states the significance of its historical heritage.
Afterwards, these documents were updated in a strategic and developmental action plan for
Český Krumlov117 which established priority projects to allocate funds from the city budget or
to apply for other funding opportunities as National or EU funds. The municipality is preparing
116
This process started with the guidance in 1995 and 1996 of the American consultant Mr. Laurence
A. G. Moss and continued in 1997 with the company VIp, s.r.o. from Prague that worked on the
strategic plan of the city.
117
Only in Czech, see about this in http://data.ckrumlov.cz/files/96-2009-12-management-plan-ceskykrumlov-en.pdf and http://obcan.ckrumlov.info/docs/cz/unesco_managementplan.xml
119
a new version of these key documents. In this process, new modes of participation are tested
with the support of the EU to involve citizens, entrepreneurs, and others to better understand
the direction to be taken given the socio-economic circumstance of the city118.
The adoption of this continuous model of management and planning was a prerequisite of
UNESCO for the preservation of classified heritage, in harmony with other local and regional
planning instruments. However, it seeks to take into account not only the criteria established by
UNESCO but also the specificities and the need for local development. For example, if, on the
one hand, there are restrictions to the development of certain economic activities and practices
of urban planning, as is the case in the rehabilitation of buildings, on the other hand, it is
expected that preservation measures of heritage represent real social benefits and economic.
Namely, through the creation of new businesses and employment opportunities to increase the
self-sustainability of the municipal budgets of the municipality (Plzáková et al., 2015).
The city has been recognised by the preservation efforts developed. For example, the
approach adopted on the south wall of the medieval castle received the Europa Nostra Prize,
the EU Prize for Cultural Heritage. The jury justified their choice because it “transfers
conservation ethics and methodology previously only used in the field of works of art, to the
scale of a whole façade and even to that of an urban landscape in which the façade is a highly
important element” (Europa Nostra, 2008: 7).
Therefore, at Český Krumlov, this new framework has brought substantial changes to the
urban landscape, notably through regulations in the restoration of buildings, the construction of
new tourist infrastructures and the recuperation of public spaces. Furthermore, the
improvements carried out and the growth of the tourism sector have made the urban centre very
attractive for investors and real estate developers and visitors. This, in turn, has increased the
value of urban properties and promote processes of gentrification.
Twenty years ago, it was full of local residents, but from UNESCO approval, the prices
started to rise (…) and they began to sell their houses to rich people (…). The buildings
around the square become only banks, inns, hotels (…) [It is necessary] to find a balance
between heritage care and normal life (…) the city empty or full of life (Member of a
non-departmental public organisation).
As part of the local strategy for urban revitalisation and tourism development, a strong
cultural agenda is promoted by local authorities in collaboration with the Český Krumlov
118
About this participatory process see
http://www.krumlovsobe.cz/cz/krumlovsobe_o_projektu_201610/
120
Development Fund and various local institutions and associations. They take advantage of the
historical and natural scenery with the aim of attracting different types of public, in addition to
the crowds of tourists who invade the city for only a few hours on excursions en route to Prague.
Among them, there are the festivals of great audience such as the Five-Petalled Rose
Celebrations - recreating a Renaissance festival; the Chamber Music Festival - the elder festival
of classical music in the town; and the Festival of Baroque Arts - held in the monastery church
and the unique Baroque Castle Theatre; or sports competitions such as Rally Český Krumlov
or the International Český Krumlov River Marathon (Figure 16.3).
Figure 16.3 Festivals in Cesky Krumlov. On the left: Opera Carmina Burana, International Music
Festival Český Krumlov 6.8.2016, author: Libor Sváček; source: Auviex s.r.o.; on the right: FivePetalled Rose Celebrations® 19.6.2016, author: Lubor Mrázek Available at: www.ckrumlov.cz.
Most of the local cultural projects, even from private initiative, are maintained with the
financial support of the Municipality of Český Krumlov, the Region of South Bohemia and the
Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. Some of these projects also benefited from other
funding sources, for instance, European programmes, UNESCO Heritage Programme, and EEA
and Norwegian Grants.
In the recent years, “tourism come to such an extent, running through the city from one side
to the other. In three hours, they go to the castle, take a photo and return to the bus” (member
of a cultural institution).
In addition to the disturbing traffic and noise situation, there is the problem of the
depopulation of the city center and the gradual alienation of the inhabitants about it. We
are aware of the negative side of tourism and are looking for ways to reduce it (…) and
121
find new tourists profiles. The historical center was in a state of abandonment before
the requalification projects (…) we have tried to invest the money coming from the
tourism in other projects (Member of a public department).
Maintaining the attention in the preservation of the existing architectural complex to
continue to display the symbol of world heritage and to invest in its transformation into a tourist
destination of high quality is today one of the top priorities of the city's administration. In his
political speech, it is also stressed the need to provide better living conditions for its inhabitants.
In this sense, in 2013, the City Council approved the local approach to support culture as a
public service in the document “Koncepce podpory kultury města Český Krumlov 2014-2020”
(MČKrumlov, 2014), prepared according to the main strategic documents of the city and where
the following medium and long-term objectives are established for public intervention in this
field:
a.
Strengthen the relationship between supply and demand of cultural activities for the
residents and visitors of the city, even in specific areas or demanding cultural activities.
b.
Maintain the cultural heritage of the city and present it appropriately to residents and
visitors.
c.
Complement, modernise and improve the effective use of infrastructures for cultural
activities.
d.
Stimulate the interest of residents and visitors to participate in cultural activities.
e.
Support cultural activities efficiently and effectively (MČKrumlov, 2014).
As underlined by a responsible for the area of the culture of the Municipality:
For a small city like Český Krumlov to be a UNESCO World Heritage is really a
prestige [but] it shouldn’t be only about conservation or preservation. Our culture (…)
it’s also our life, our style, our life expectations. You know, how we deal with our lives,
with our heritage, with our future. (Member of a public department)
After twenty years of UNESCO classification, which has radically transformed the city
centre, it is generally recognised by local actors that the city is at a turning point that must find
a new strategy. Thus, everyone recognised the need of discussing a new strategy that should
encompass a focus on creating better “conditions for jobs, for new jobs (…) especially for
young people” (Member of a public department).
Český Krumlov is a city where, thanks to its natural and geographic qualities and the
support of several actors and institutions, culture has always been part of its development path,
with as especially attention to theatre, music and painting fields in consort with the historical
and architectonic legacy.
122
Actors analysis
The Ministry of Culture of Czech Republic is the central State administrative authority for
the arts, cultural and educational activities, cultural monuments, and other matters relating to
religious groups, the press, radio and television broadcasting, for implementation of the
“Copyright Act”, and for production and trade in the culture area. The Ministry provides direct
support to cultural heritage development and preservation from the state budget, being
responsible for 30 state-funded institutions, including museums, galleries, theatres, and
historical monuments. On behalf of the Ministry, the National Heritage Institute - and its
Heritage Fund, plays a central role in the conservation and revitalisation of the Czech cultural
and natural heritage.
The Ministry of Regional Development is who defines regional policy and land use
planning as we have mentioned before. South-Bohemian Region as the regional authority
execute not only their autonomous competencies but also delegated competencies of central
administration. Among their competences are the coordination of territorial development and
the approval and implementation of developmental and strategic documents. The Regional
Authority ensures the performance of regions' competencies. Constituted by 55 elected
members and which its independent powers are set by the constituent bodies of the region, the
Regional Council (the executive body in matters of independent power) and the Regional
Assembly.
The Regional Heritage Administration in České Budějovice (under the National Heritage
Institute) is responsible for the listed heritage in South Bohemia like the Český Krumlov, Castle
and gardens which is managed by the Český Krumlov State Castle and Chateau administration
(hereafter Castle Administration). This a central player in the local development and the
improvement of cultural initiatives in collaboration with local authorities and other institutions
and civic associations in the region. In general, it aims to preserve and promote the memories
of the past, at the same time, that offers leisure and education activities. The Castle initiatives
had supported many business initiatives and specialised skills such as in restoration field,
gastronomy or costumes design (Figure 17.3).
The role of the municipality representatives was decisive in the regeneration process
promoted after the 1990s as we saw before. To manage more efficiently the properties in the
123
Figure 17.3 Business activities involved in Castle events and restoration
(photos cortesy of the Castle’s Administration)
historical centre the municipality decided to create a business a company entirely owned by
them, the Český Krumlov Development Fund. Its main mission was to secure the renovation of
the relevant historical buildings, in agreement with other strategic objectives defined by the
City’s administration. Namely, the revitalisation of the functions and the economy of the
historic centre, the attraction of investment, and the development and management of tourist
activity in the city. To fulfil this last objective the Český Krumlov Development Fund created
in 2001 a tourism department, the Destination Management119.
The Municipal Authority is responsible for the Strategic Plan for the Development of Český
Krumlov - the primary orientation of the city's development in the long term. This document
should ensure within a specified timeframe the coordination of strategic activities that
significantly affect the lives of the inhabitants of the city.
In general, there are weak community links and a certain alienation feeling concerning the
historic city centre. Although residents express the proud of their heritage, there are many
criticisms about the over-emphasis on mass tourism in the city's strategy and dissatisfactions
119
It was also created the Infocentrum, the Official Information System and the Parking Project to
develop tourism in the town and surroundings.
124
about the commercial offer brought by foreign investors that are based on low standards and
value-added.
In recent years, they also witnessed the transformation of the original residential function
of buildings in the historic centre in restaurants, hotels, souvenir shops, oriented almost
exclusively to tourists. Subsequently, prices of real estate and consumer goods increased. The
number of permanent residents in the centre has decreased as a result of the ageing and
displacement of the population to the homes that have grown up in the surrounding suburban
settlements and which allow a comfortable and modern lifestyle, especially for younger
families. Young people are one of the segments of the population that feels particularly
vulnerable to the lack of employment opportunities in the city, being tempted to migrate to
larger cities as the capital of the region. As observed by locals:
This town is for tourists. Many people who used to live in the centre moved outside the
town (…) because it is difficult to have a normal life [here] (Member of an association).
The high prices, the orientation to mass tourism, the lack of practical shops in the city
centre (...) sometimes it’s quite exhausting for normal people who are living and
working here. It’s complicated because everywhere there are crowds of tourists
(Member of a public cultural institution).
Despite this, the city tries to support the development of essential civic services and to
withdraw from the centre some tourist activities to other areas such as the meadow zones of the
Vltava river. Also, some local actors in their activities focus mainly on the inhabitants of the
district. An example of this may be the annual cultural festival (zažít město jinak - experience
the city differently) organised in Cesky Krumlov, but also in other Czech cities. This event
recovers parts of the historic downtown to the locals to keep the city alive and not just an
outdoor museum or scenery.
In fact, the desire to restore daily life in the city while maintaining its identity is recurrent
in conversations held with key informants, like the following:
I think they would need to aim for local people in order to keep them living there (…)
to have a living city (Member of a public cultural institution).
I hope that we will try to preserve and to maintain our identity of this town because (…)
the concurrence or the competition will be very hard in the future, and it will be
necessary not to be as every modern European destination, but to have something new,
something local, something unique (…) (Member of a public department).
Local authorities already acknowledge these problems. Long-Term research carried out
from 1992-2008, by the Department of Cultural Theory of the Philosophical Faculty of Charles
125
University (Prague), “clearly indicates that residents are gradually losing their identification
with the historic town core”. In its place, “the surrounding villages and nature is constantly
increasing” (MČKrumlov, 2009: 46-47) (these problems were also identified in the testimonies
collected). However, as stated by a local official, tourism based on the city’s historical heritage
permitted to achieve a new development path for the city, formerly in an advanced state of
abandonment. But it is also recognised the potential of natural landscape for leisure and
recreation activities including for residents’ quality of life (Member of a public department).
The sense of place and community identification are also concerns of local cultural
institutions that attempt to offer exhibitions and community-oriented initiatives to improve the
knowledge about the city’s historical past as is the case of the Český Krumlov Municipal
Theatre120 and the Regional Museum121:
We try to work for people living here (…) lectures, discussions and workshops for
schoolchildren and adults to present the history of Český Krumlov region from
prehistoric times (Member of a public cultural institution).
This is also the case for the city's new museum space, the renovated Seidel Photographic
Studio Museum - Museem Fotoateliér Seidel, the home and photography studio of Josef and
František Seidel family122. Its recovery offers an authentic and unique testimony of the social
and cultural history of the region, since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th
century, including the turbulent period of the first half of the 20th century, between Czechs and
Germans. The extensive and well-preserved collection comprises photos and notes of the
surrounding rich landscapes, innovations in industry, architecture pictures as well as studio
portraits and group photos that capture different local characters, moments of celebration and
daily life of the local community, among many others. Recognising its quality, it awarded with
the Gloria Musealis for the best Czech House Museum (2009).123 Owned by CKDF, the
museum was renovated with the revenues of tourism (for example from the municipals parks
used by tourists) as well as grants obtained from the Czech Ministry of Culture European funds.
In the opinion of the local authorities, this museum is a good illustration of the local
development approach and the tourism benefits. It is also considered an example of how to
120
http://www.divadlo.ckrumlov.cz/cz/divadlo_cesky_krumlov/
http://www.muzeumck.cz/
122
http://www.seidel.ckrumlov.cz
123
Gloria Musealis is a national competition of museums launched recently by the Ministry of Culture
and the Association of Museums and Galleries of the Czech Republic.
121
126
maintain with authenticity the material and immaterial collective memory of the town and its
community. Many families returned to the studio today to find their ancestors or to take photos,
permitting the museum to maintain the memory of families linked to the city.
We continue the tradition of photographing or portray the people (…) there're a lot of
families that comes with grandmothers and grandfathers who tell us: ‘I was pictured
here when I was five years old.’ And now they [return] again to photograph with the
new family, with the small kids (…) It’s a way to keep the memory of the people who
lived here (Responsible of the Museum Fotoateliér Seidel).
In fact, this institution anchored in a strong narrative about the community preserves a
certain mystery and authenticity that we recognise when we explore the city beyond the crowds
of tourists. There are other cultural institutions like the Baroque Theatre Foundation124, Egon
Schiele Art Center125, Czech Ceramic Design Agency126, among many others that are important
to improve city's symbolic capital.
The educational system of the city dates from the middle of the 14th century, and its history
included the foundation of one of the oldest music schools in the country, the Municipal School
of Music in 1780, reflecting the long-term commitment to the artistic education of residents in
Český Krumlov. From this school derives the Elementary Art School in Český Krumlov127
which in addition to pedagogical work performs several concerts and is widely active in
municipal events. Also, the St. Agnes of Bohemia Secondary School of Art and Design Český
Krumlov128 maintaining the town artistic tradition and trains several students in applied arts and
restoration techniques (Figure 18.3 shows some examples of artistic and cultural entities and
manifestations).
The artist learning and mobility is encouraged not only by the various programs of artistic
residencies, scholarships and study trips but also by the many expositions and events (e.g.
Magical Krumlov) that offer conditions for the presentation of his works, not only to
professionals as amateurs from all over the world.
Non-profit organisations have always played a significant role in Czech civil society as it
denotes the extensive list of cultural, artistic and educational associations in the territory. Their
initiatives aimed to enrich and sustain a lived cultural scene and social groups. These
124
www.castle.ckrumlov.cz/docs/en/zamek_oinf_nadace.xml
http://www.schieleartcentrum.cz/en/exhibitions/1/
126
www.virtual-gallery.cz
127
http://www.zus-ceskykrumlov.cz/
128
http://www.supsck.cz/
125
127
Figure 18.3 Artistic and cultural spaces and events in the historical center. Upper left corner: Egon
Schiele Art Center: Bottom left corner: Photographic Studio, Seidel Museum; Center: figures in
terracotta, School of Elementary Arts in Český Krumlov; Right: Contemporary art exhibition on the
river bank (Seidel Museum’s photo - author: Svajcr; other photos: author’s photo).
organisations function as semi-fiscal organisations of the State or Municipality or as not-forprofit organisations, assuming various legal forms, such as public utility organisations (now
institutes), associations or some other legal form. Thus, they are partially supported by public
funds but also collected donations or sponsorships from various sources. “Parents of our
students are willing to help us, contribute financially and support shows and exhibitions”
(Member of a public education institution).
Some of the local actors emphasised the small dimension of the town permits that “people
are very intertwined and know each other”, but notwithstanding there is a certain lack of civic
participation and trust, except in those events, there are already well-standing, as well as some
difficulties in establishing ties of collaboration between institutions. “People are just thinking
about their own project; they don’t cooperate” (Opinion maker).
Enquiring about the model of public-private partnerships promoted by many European
governments, it was stressed that these “public-private partnerships it is rarely in the Czech
Republic because, I think, we are quite inexperienced” (Member of a non-departmental public
organisation).
128
Some key findings
The physical and symbolic image of Český Krumlov is dominated by the castle complex
on the Vltava river, the medieval configuration of the well-preserved city and the renovated
Gothic and Renaissance houses. The recognition of this unique heritage by the UNESCO World
Heritage Committee has allowed for the sustainability of the renovation process of the historical
urban centre. Besides, the region's natural landscape offers an inspiring ambience but also
perfect conditions for leisure and nature tourism activities. The municipality created a public
company for the management of the properties and tourism development in the historical centre.
In parallel, they support a vast cultural offer, especially festivals and musical performances with
the help of local cultural institutions that aimed to give new life to the town. With the growth
of tourists and new investors, many buildings in the city centre lost a substantial part of their
permanent residents for tourism and other related services.
The historical centre was transformed into a space of consumption invaded by tour
operators and groups of tourists, especially in high season and for a few hours, which run
through the numerous and identical souvenir shops and the main spots. Among the main
problems mentioned by the community are the noise problems; the proliferation of tourismoriented businesses, in contrast to the lack of retail stores for residents; the high prices of
properties, goods and services, and the related gentrification processes.
Local leaders are aware of the need to create a quality and diversified tourism offer,
consistent throughout the year, and that promotes the distinctive values of the place as well as
a greater connection with the vast surrounding countryside to achieve higher economic,
environmental and social benefits. The focus on tourism has resulted in a vital source of income
for the municipality, but it has also brought many challenges, familiar to many World Heritage
sites. It must find the balance between conservation and "museification” and the requirements
of modern life and preservation demands; the rising tourism flows and the search for authentic
and unique experiences (as in the case of the creative initiatives developed by the Castle or the
photos taken in the Museum Seidel). In this sense, these initiatives that propose the contact with
the unique traditions and memories of the community, connecting the visitors to the places have
diverse potentialities for tourism development. In simultaneity, it fostered the emergence of
new cultural and creative business and skills.
Local actors are here not just a component of urban revitalisation scheme but active
promoters of place-marketing and development strategies. Within it, there are numerous
organisations committed to preserve the city heritage and provide cultural and educational
129
activities of recognisable quality. Nonetheless, many of them had expressed some difficulty in
establishing regular partnerships, as well as in obtaining support for projects focused on
community development and disadvantaged groups. More, there is a fragile relationship
between cultural and political elites and the inhabitants, revealed in some distrust discursive
elements and deficit of public participation and engagement in the initiatives promoted by the
local entities.
As stated in national policy guidelines, conservation and rehabilitation of heritage and
traditional artistic and cultural practices, as well as, the organisations that promote them are the
primary focus of local cultural policy. The non-material culture (traditions, habits, gastronomy,
etc.) is insufficiently identified and its preservation depends considerably on the numerous
activities of the third sector.
Regarding development policies, culture represents an essential resource for the tourism
industry and the country's economy. It also has a central role in the definition of the local
development strategy, namely in the construction of the image and identity of the place, in
urban revitalisation and planning processes, as well as, in the valorisation of local knowledge
and memories and the preservation of traditional artistic and cultural activities. In this sense,
for a more sustainable development, it is imperative to look beyond the historical centre and
perceive the ways of life of the community.
The district's cultural sector depends to a large extent on public support and the reduction
of state support since 2009, justified by the economic crisis and the budget deficit is a huge test
for the development of local cultural policy.
Another big challenge for this municipality is to maintain the locus genius and preserve the
heritage that gave it world status, while at the same time seeking to meet the expectations of
travellers, investors, but also residents. Despite all the questions and hassles, outside the peak
hours of the excursions and walking on the renovated streets, Cesky Krumlov still gives us, a
particular sensory experience that brings us back to the old aristocratic atmosphere, the same
sentiment that attracted many famous artists and residents in the past. Besides, there are cultural
actors in place capable of developed sustainable and creative experiences able to maintain the
community alive and sustaining new development paths strong rooted in the valorisation of
local culture and heritage.
130
b. Jyväskylä, Central Finland, Finland
Context analysis
Finland is a northern European unitary country with a parliamentary democracy. It has a
total of 5,401,267 inhabitants concentrated mostly in towns and cities (in Finnish: kaupunki; in
Swedish: stad) surrounded by vast sparse areas. Divided into two tiers of local self-government,
it includes 19 regions (in Finnish: maakunta; in Swedish: landskap129), plus the autonomous
province of the Åland Islands, and 320 municipalities (in Finnish: kunta; in Swedish:
kommun).130 Finland’s municipalities are self-governing entities, which, under Finnish law,
have the right to decide on their own matters inclusive local cultural policy and cultural services
in their area.
From the 13th century to 1809, Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden, when became
an autonomous Grand Duchy of Russian Empire. After the declaration of independence in 1917
was followed by several periods with military conflicts until the end of World War II. In this
first phase, it was characterised essentially as an agrarian and hardly prosperous society with a
small service and industrial sector grounded in the wood and paper industry. Since the 1950s,
the rapid industrialisation and economic modernisation performed a structural shift from
agriculture to a service-based economy. The creation of the welfare state brought administrative
reforms that emphasised the role of municipalities increasingly as service providers and
producers. After 1989, the emergent local autonomy was consolidated whereby the
municipalities became responsible for the provision of social and healthcare services,
education, cultural services and technical infrastructure.
However, in the period 1990-1993, the Finnish economy suffered one of the worst crises in
its history, with serious socio-economic effects. The Nordic welfare state model was challenged
by the economic recession and globalisation that led governments to promote a neoliberal
approach to public policy increasingly. By investing in ICT cluster development, Finland turned
to the knowledge-intensive economy while continuing to support well-being and employment
policies (Castells and Himanen, 2002; Benner, 2003). When the country joined the EU in 1995,
129
130
Finland has two official languages: Finnish (88.67%) and Swedish (5.29%).
In the Finnish regional division, Mainland Finland and Åland are NUTS 1 areas, major regions
NUTS 2 areas, regions NUTS 3 areas. Sub-regional units are the LAU level 1 (NUTS 4) and
municipalities LAU level 2 (NUTS 5).
131
and the European Economic and the Monetary Union three years later, its economy was already
recovering, continuing to grow until 2007 (Holmström et al., 2014).
More recently, the 2008 global financial crisis produced in the Finnish economy a unique
confluence of cyclical and structural shocks (IMF, 2015). The decline of the paper industry and
the electronics sector with the collapse of Nokia, the Russian recession and the sanctions regime
imposed on this country, the crisis in the Eurozone, the ageing of the workforce are factors that
have contributed to this situation. Since 2016 there are signs of a slow recovery strengthened
by domestic demand (EC, 2016b, 2017; OECD, 2017).
In the meantime, the country is becoming renowned for its education system; as a model of
a knowledge society; and by the promotion of cross-sectoral networks between firms,
universities, research institutes and public bodies that foster a new governance system (e.g.
Tainio et al., 2000; Oinas, 2005; Sahlgren, 2015).
It shares a set of societal characteristics with other Nordic countries, but also particular
features as a result of its own history (Oinas, 2005). The same can be said about cultural policy,
which has been institutionalised about the 1950s in Finland, as in the other Nordic countries,
mostly as an instrument for the promotion of national identity. During the 1970s and 1980s, the
cultural sector was established as one of the public service sectors pursuing cultural democracy
objectives, as well as, the democratisation of culture through a vast network of cultural
institutions (Pyykkönen et al., 2009; Saukkonen and Ruusuvirta, 2013). From the 1990s, there
was a reposition towards greater instrumentalisation of culture.
In Finland, the objectives of regional development policy are set in accordance with the
Government's program and coordinated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment,
but sectoral ministries also draw up their strategies at regional level131. The ministry works in
coordination with the Regional Councils which are the authorities responsible for the strategic
development of their regions.
The Town of Jyväskylä was founded in 1837 by Nicholas I, Czar of Russia at the northern
end of the lake Päijänne at the crossroads of three major watercourses and a vast area of forests.
It is located at 270 km north of the capital Helsinki with good transport connections (inclusive
a regional airport).
131
The targets, responsibilities of the authorities and programmes of regional development were
determined in the Act on Regional Development and the Administration of Structural Funds
(7/2014).
132
It is the main city and the capital of Central Finland region (in Finnish: Keski-Suomi,
Swedish: Mellersta Finland), a region classified as predominantly rural (applied to EU NUTS
3 regions, Eurostat, 2012, see Figure 19.3 and Annexe C).
Figure 19.3 Locatisation of Central Finland Region and Jyväskylä region.
Like other Finnish municipalities (LAU 2), Jyväskylä underwent an administrative reform,
merging in 2009 with the surrounding Jyväskylä Rural Municipality and the Municipality of
Korpilahti, justified by the demand to respond more efficiently to local problems (OECD 2010).
Currently, it covers a vast area of 1,466.5 km² (about ten times more than previously), which
1,171.0 km² are land area, with an estimated density of 118.58 persons per square kilometre
(Statistics Finland, 2016). As local representatives emphasised, this reform represented an
enormous challenge both regarding management and in combining communities’ interests,
especially in the provision of public services necessary to these more dispersed and distinctive
populations as said by the City Planning.
Jyväskylä sub-region (LAU1) encompasses the adjacent municipalities of Hankasalmi,
Laukaa, Muurame, Petäjävesi, Toivakka and Uurainen (see Figure 20.3).
An interesting data is that more than half of the population in the region lives in Jyväskylä
and about 80% of its residents live at a walking distance from the city centre. The inner city
Kantakaupunki counts only 27,750 residents and maintaining the atmosphere of a small town
133
(Statistics
Finland,
2016)
and
maintaining the atmosphere of a small
town. It has a very young population of
which 45,000 are schoolchildren and
students132 fundamentally thanks to the
existence of high-quality and diverse
health and education providers, which
is especially attractive to young people
and families.
The compact and small city centre
is the functional core of a vast rural
hinterland of lakes, forests and hills.
Consequently, it benefits from all the
natural
surroundings
with
Figure 20.3 Jyväskylä sub-region and Municipality after
2009 administrative reform
(http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/international/map)
many
amenities linked to the enjoyment of nature, practise sports and the experience of the traditional
Finnish sauna (see Figure 21.3).
Figure 21.3 An aerial view of Jyväskylä center in summer 2014
(source: City of Jyväskylä, photographer: VideoDrone Finland Oy Juhani Mikkola)
132
http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/international/facts/statistics
134
It offers very pleasant cold and snowy winters in which the lakes freeze and short summers
where the temperature rises above +25 °C.
Advances and retreats characterise the evolution of the town. By the end of the 19th century,
the city was increasingly recognised as the centre of the rising Finnish culture, hosting national
teacher training meetings as well as popular annual song and music festivals. At the same time,
its geographical location and natural resources induced the development and industrialisation
of the region in forest products field and afterwards in machinery and equipment production,
as in the whole of the Finnish economy (Statistics Finland, 2007; Sabel and Saxenian, 2008;
Oksanen and Hautamäki, 2014). This prosperity throughout the twentieth century brought
wealth to the region, and the population grew.
However, this development was interrupted by the recession of the 1990s which has severe
repercussions on the economy and employment. The need to restructure the region's economy
has made local and regional players bet on the development of an educational cluster with
international visibility and reputation. After this period, the investment in ICT, the availability
of skilled labour provided by the education institutions and the organisation of a Centre of
Expertise Programme (Osaamiskeskusohjelma - OSKE)133 has driven a long-term strategy
focused on knowledge, innovation, creativity and well-being. The ICT sector grew in the region
with large companies as Nokia (settled in the city in 1998). Other high-tech businesses in areas
as electronics, energy, environmental, and more recently, wellness and nanotechnology, but
also successful companies in traditional sectors have contributed to Jyväskylä region
development.
The industrial structure of the region is dominated by the service sector (75% of jobs) which
is concentrated particularly in the city area. More recently, in 2009 the closure of the Nokia
Research Center in the city, which along with the contraction felt in other sectors had significant
impacts on employment, and a new period of difficulties was expected. However, previous
experience has led the City Council to take measures aimed at highly skilled labour then
available, in cooperation with universities and the private sector.
Since the 1990s, there have been significant investments in infrastructures as the Jyväskylä
Science Park, which comprises an incubator that merges research and development activities
133
The OSKE is a national cluster programme initiated in 1994 and an instrument of Finland regional
innovation policy. The objective of the programme is to benefit regional enterprises and develop
competitive businesses around knowledge expertise focus mainly on IT sector. The programme has
been funded by EU Structural Funds, state institutions and a few amount by private business sector.
135
with the needs of business life and the versatile Jyväskylän Paviljonki - Congress and Trade
Fair Centre.
In addition to the landscape framing,
the legacy of its most internationally
famous architect, Alvar Aalto (19511971), defined the predominantly modern
character and the urbanism of the city (see
Figure 22.3). Among the 24 iconic
buildings designed by the architect is the
administrative and cultural in downtown
or the Alvar Aalto Museum134. In the same
vein, the city has promoted international
architectural competition that seeks to
foster the quality of the buildings.
Other museums such as the Jyväskylä
Art Museum135, the Craft Museum of
Finland136,
the
Museum
Finland137
and
Centre
of
for
Central
Creative
Photography138 contributed to the cultural
Figure 22.3 Säynätsalo Town Hall, one of the most
important works of Alvar Aalto (author’s photo)
scene along with local theatre companies, orchestras and several popular events, namely: the
long-established Jyväskylä Arts Festival or the International Neste Oil Rally that contributed
for the liveability of the city. In the region, there are also two UNESCO World Heritage Sites:
the Petäjävesi Old Church and the Oravivuori triangulation tower, inscribed respectively in
1994 and 2005.
In Jyväskylä, the most significant cultural branches are printmaking and photography that
benefited of infrastructures Centre for Creative Photography that runs, with the Jyväskylä Art
Museum, the Ratamo Printmaking and Photography Centre139 that includes a gallery and
134
https://www.alvaraalto.fi/en/location/alvar-aalto-museum/
http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/taidemuseo/english
136
www.craftmuseum.fi/english/
137
http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/keskisuomenmuseo/english
138
http://www.ccp.fi/en/
139
http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/ratamo/en/info/whatis
135
136
printmaking and photography studios. The Crafts Association of Central Finland140 runs a
Handicraft Centre, a shop and a craft school, providing opportunities for learning and
developing individual projects. Among other creative and cultural spaces, these institutions
provide training and support for artists and other creative people.
Process analysis
The 1990’s crisis was a significant catalyst in the mobilisation of the development process
and a generator of creative tension in the region. A new urban strategy was launched, and as
denoted by the Mayor Pekka Kettunen at that time (1994-2004) it expressed “the urban utopia
of a human-centred technology cluster on the lake shore right in the centre of the city” (Halinen,
2002).
For a long time, the development of expertise was the primary objective of development
strategies of the Jyväskylä urban area (Linnamaa, 2002; Guidoum, 2010). Known as the
“Athens of Finland” due to the quality of its education and research institutions, a new
marketing strategy began around the 2000s to increase its visibility and as a way to look into
the future. The rising of the technology sector in combination with the size of the city and the
human-centred approach to technology led to the adoption of “Human Technology City” brand.
The Agora Center141 built in 2000 as an independent institute of the University of Jyväskylä
was decisive to introduce an interdisciplinary research approach in the field of human
technology in partnership with local business and the City that has been transferred to other
fields.
As most of the interviewees recognised Jyväskylä education cluster is the best description
of the region, and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are indubitable critical drivers of the
municipality strategy enhancing the city and sustaining long-term growth development and
resilience. They are among Finland's leading research and educational institutions attracting
youngsters and families as well as an increasing number of international students. Both are
engaged in active collaboration with regional stakeholders, private firms, supporting
services/agencies and intermediate organisations.
In response to the most recent structural crisis that began in 2008, the City Council of
Jyväskylä has established an innovative program called the “Working Group on Structural
140
141
http://www.aivia.fi/taito-aivia/in-english/
https://www.jyu.fi/erillis/agora/en
137
Change”. Together the University of Jyväskylä and the Ministry of Employment and
Economics, they have developed a set of support measures and services for qualified people in
unemployment but also to companies for creating new businesses to highly-skilled workers to
continue their education through doctoral studies and participate in special research programs
(Oksanen and Hautamäki, 2014; Yamina Guidoum, 2010). Also, to meet the new challenges,
in 2009 the Agora Center with the Faculty of Information Technology and the University of
Jyväskylä in close relation with the Nokia researcher centre developed an innovation ecosystem
model “to create an environment in which resources in companies, among citizens and in the
public sphere are put to good use to create genuine synergies” (Hautamäki and Oksanen, 2015:
96).
As in other Nordic countries, in Finland, the defence of wellbeing and the promotion of
healthy lifestyles in connection with nature enjoyment is part of their traditions and
community's aspirations. Apropos, in the Finnish language, there is only one-word
“hyvinvointi” to express the idea of wellness and wellbeing. Thus, the cultural values associated
with wellbeing and wellness principles are at the base of local and regional development
strategy and help to design the city's image. As representative of this commitment, the Local
Action Plan developed for the project European Creative Clusters network focused on “Culture
and Wellness” idea142. In this project, produced by the city and local stakeholders, they sought
to foster cooperation between the CCIs and the so-called wellness sector, comprising from the
development of technologies associated with sports and health activities; to tourism and music
therapy programs to combat depression or improve disease periods.
A demonstration of this inter-sectoral approach is the research created by the
Interdisciplinary Music Research Centre, Department of Music of the Jyväskylä University
(Finnish Programme for Centres of Excellence in Research 2008-2013) which has been used
for experience in clinic practice in collaboration with other institutes, private companies and
the Municipality (Figure 23.3).
Another example in the LYSTI project coordinated by JAMK University of Applied
Sciences that brings art into the daily life of hospitals and homes for the elderly by providing
carers with training and consultation, giving them tools to use art and culture as part of their
basic treatment and therapy work.
142
Jyväskylä Local Action Plan –URBACT II programme.
http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/jyvaskyla/embeds/jyvaskylawwwstru
cture/47489_Urbact_LAP_nettiin.pdf
138
Figure 23.3 Interdisciplinary Music Research Centre (author’s photo).
Jyväskylä has become known as a tourist destination through the organisation of events but
also international conferences, meetings, and fairs. This strategy was consolidated with the
construction of the Jyväskylän Paviljonki - Congress and Trade Fair Centre143 located in
Lutakko area. This old harbour area was subject to a unique project of regeneration and
transformed into an award-winning residential area. Without losing the image and memory of
the industrial era, it integrated the construction of residences, offices, conference and events
facilities, cultural amenities as well as a campus of the JAMK University of Applied Sciences
(see Figure 24.3). This HEI coordinated a research project (2009-2012) in the area based on a
Living Lab methodology. The objective was to test, in real life experimental environment, the
user’s involvement (residents and hundreds of students) in product and service innovations
development together with a network of local stakeholders: universities, consultants and local
authorities, and so on (e.g. Krawczyk and Ruuska, 2010; Krawczyk et al., 2011; Pirttiaho and
Krawczyk, 2012; Pallot et al., 2013). This model under the Quadruple Helix label has been
widely discussed in innovation literature, and particularly academia and in the political debate
in Finland on regional innovation systems (Taloustieto Oy, 2009; Arnkil et al., 2010).
143
It organises 1000 events yearly, which attract over 400 000 visitors and many exhibitors at the trade
fairs organized (Hämäläinen and Ruuska, 2010; Ruuska, 2012).
139
Figure 24.3 Lutakko area (author’s photo)
In the same vein, a major urban regeneration project is now being developed in the Kangas
area where was a disused paper mill meanwhile acquired by the Municipality. In 2011, part of
an EU-funded pilot project, the City of Jyväskylä and Jyväskylä HUB began an innovative
planning strategy where they explored new participation methods, from wiki planning, digital
storytelling to online forums methods144. Before the start of the project, they gathered the ideas
of citizens and civic associations to be used in an architectural competition to co-create a
common vision (City of Jyväskylä, 2011; Oksanen and Hautamäki, 2014).
For approximately 150 years, the factory area was closed to the citizens, and consequently
the developers they sought to understand "how to reintroduce people to the area and how to use
the old industrial brand and heritage in development and branding" (City of Jyväskylä, 2011).
In this project, the governance model was implemented taking advantage not only of the social
media but also of the organisation of cultural and creative initiatives, from festivals, art
exhibitions and performances in order to foster collaborations and involve civil society in urban
planning (Figure 25.3).
In the Kangas area, it was introduced a model related to urban development and creative
cities. This model “the Percent for Culture principle” declares that approximately 1% of the
144
Kaupungin Kangas - Inclusion of civil society in city planning, was a pilot case of the CLIQ project
- Creating Local Innovation through a Quadruple Helix, Interreg IVC http://www.cliqproject.eu/
140
Figure 25.3 Aerial view of the Kangas area
(source: City of Jyväskylä, author: Suomen Ilmakuva Oy)
profit made from selling plots, development charges and building costs will be allocated to
permanent and temporary art as well as to cultural events in Kangas (Pulkkinen and Hannus,
2015)
Therefore, in these regeneration project, culture was assumed as a central theme in this
urban project discussion, testing a new vision of planning that overlaps the traditional land use
management. They combine different daily uses to modern urban cultures as explained by the
City Planning Department and the offer of spaces for cultural producers and creative business.
Furthermore, the region's natural resources and services (e.g., spas, skiing and holiday
centres) provide competitive advantages for its promotion as a destination of well-being, in line
with the strategy developed by the Jyväskylä region and Central Finland, but also by the Finnish
Tourist Board (Hjalager et al., 2011; Konu et al., 2011). As part of this strategy to transform
the region into an international innovation centre on sauna culture145 has been developed the
brand “Sauna from Finland” and an association to foster the collaboration and partnerships
between players from different sectors (e.g., sauna manufacturing, tourism, wellness and
creative industries). For the design and development of the products destined to this market
niche, the agency collected locally users experiences, stories, and photos about sauna to provide
145
“Sauna from Finland” is a concept started by the Jyväskylä Regional Development Company Jykes
Ltd, which aims to create new service innovations about sauna.
141
tourists genuine experiences of Finnish culture (Hjalager et al. 2011). These creative
experiences and products improved the attractiveness and competitiveness as a tourist
destination and support the lifestyles and values of local communities principally in the
countryside. As stated by the Regional Council officer, the interplay between the creative
industries and tourism create opportunities for enhancing the attractiveness and support and
adding value to traditional activities and way of living of the local communities.
Together with the promotion of leisure and wellness tourism, the development of a cluster
where well-being, technology and culture are intertwined, is seen as key areas of local strategy
and reflects the local way of doing things, combining different approaches to develop
innovative solutions. In this field, there is already some business that grew in the region, such
as Firstbeat, a leading company providing physiological analytics for sports, fitness and
wellbeing146.
Moreover, culture is increasingly understood a way to achieve economic goals through the
development of talents and creative industries, in accordance with national and regional
programmes, not only in the urban centre but also in the surrounding countryside. Following
national and European discourse, the Central Region of Finland have been working in the
awareness of cultural and creativity issues at the local level with city authorities.
One of our priorities is promoting entrepreneurship or supporting companies. And
creative industries can give an added value to these traditional industries. So, [it is] our
task to show that (…). We have been working with [local] authorities for almost three
years. We collect all these organisations together around one table, and we have been
trying to develop a common vision about all of these organisations - supporting
organisations and supporting creative economy and the creative industry (Regional
Council officer).
A roadmap produced in the European project CREA.RE147 reveals that among the 873
creative businesses that exist in Central Finland, 581 are located in Jyväskylä municipality. The
most representative subsector is advertising and communication activities, followed by
literature, publishing and book printing business, and next by crafts and design production (see
Figure 26.3).148
146
https://www.firstbeat.com/en/
European programme INTERREG IVC http://www.crea-re.eu/
148
The data presented is based on official statistics of 2010. This information was provided by the
representatives of Regional Council of Central Finland and responsible for the CREA.RE project
interviewed.
147
142
Figure 26.3 Mapping Creative Industries in Central Finland
(courtesy of Raija Partanen, Crea.re project manager)
Regarding cultural policy, like other welfare policy areas, public funding from state and
municipalities plays a major role in supporting art and culture activities and institutions. The
budget for arts and culture is under the Ministry of Education and Culture’s main title of
expenditure which defines the objectives that guide national policy and the lottery proceeds.
This includes the support of art education and culture programs from early childhood education
onwards as well as the improvement of conditions for students’ participation in cultural
activities. The rationales adopted by local authorities are influenced by a diversity of working
groups and recommendations from the Ministry of Education and Culture, together with the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health or the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (Kangas
and Pirnes, 2015).
Besides the support of diverse artists and civic and cultural institutions, the city of Jyväskylä
supports many projects149 and events where local artists and institutions are central. An example
is the recently renovated Veturitallit Youth Centre, a locomotive repair station built in 1896 and
converted into a youth and community centre by the Cultural services of the City. It offers
equipped rehearsal rooms and studio for music, theatre, performing or other cultural activities
149
For example, the Cultural Unit Services developed the Kulttuuriaitta project to organise regular art
activities for children and young people in schools and day care or the Osaattori - Art for Older
People project the promotes the employment of artists and promote art and culture in elderly care
units (see more information in http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/kulttuuri/palvelut/hankkeet).
143
for youngsters. At the same time, it encourages them to express their opinion about urban
problems.
Despite the efforts to increase public participation, the interviewed talked about the
necessity to continue to improve more cooperation between local stakeholders from different
sectors, notably the collaboration between the cultural sector and city’s authorities in the
definition of the local strategy. As stated by the interviewees:
[Jyväskylä] it is a very strong region of excellent museums, and I would say that
probably the region has not made the best use of that resource (…). I think that the City
of Jyväskylä has potential to create a stronger profile in terms of facilitator and service
provider (...). It should be marketed in a stronger way (Member of a public department).
The recent structural crisis considerably due to downsizing in industries such as electronics
and forestry presents major challenges regarding the long-term sustainability of the current
levels of welfare, due to rapid population ageing, industrial restructuring and the loss of
competitiveness in international markets (OECD, 2010b).150 At the municipal level, declining
tax revenues, growing demand for services and significant cuts in transfers from central
government to local government mean that local authorities are under increasing pressure to
reduce investment (AFLRA, 2014).
Therefore, alongside “hard” investments mentioned above, it is promoted “soft”
development tools from social and cultural policies, with a broad range of cultural activities,
citizen participation programmes and so forth, aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of the place
and individuals’ quality of life.
The most recent approved city strategy by Jyväskylä city council on December 2014
identifies three main goals for the city: active, healthy and happy citizens, wise use of resources,
and a bold business policy (City of Jyväskylä, 2015). More recently, the aims of transform
Jyväskylä “the best place to live, work and study” was reinforced in the city strategy for
2017-2021 founded on responsibility, trust, creativity, openness values (City of Jyväskylä,
2017).
Lastly, many local actors acclaim to foster a more comprehensive understanding of culture
in local development strategy, implicated in city life and its citizens connected to the urban and
natural landscape.
150
See also EC (2012a) Commission Staff Working Document. Assessment of the 2012 national
reform programme and stability programme for Finland (SWD/2012/0312 final).
144
Actors analysis
As we noted earlier, the municipalities of Finland are autonomous entities with the capacity
to decide on their own subjects, including the establishment and collection of taxes. The Council
chooses members to the municipal board, in charge of municipal administration and financial
management. It also elects the members to the municipal committees, which are responsible for
providing a diversity of services to its citizens. Moreover, in the case of Jyväskylä, it is also the
largest employer in the region of Central Finland.
In agreement with “Municipal Cultural Activities Act” (1992)151, the municipality is
primarily responsible for promoting, supporting and organising the cultural life of its residents.
The City of Jyväskylä has a Cultural Services Unit that deals with cultural affairs but also with
sports, leisure, youth work and education. Thus, their work includes to maintain local cultural
infrastructures such as the libraries, museums, the City Theatre and Jyväskylä Sinfonia as well
as the sport, recreation and civic activities.
The current Mayor of Jyväskylä is Timo Koivisto, who in the period of his predecessor (the
Mayor Markku Andersson) was the deputy mayor responsible for Urban Planning and City
Infrastructure; Culture and Sports; and Growth and Learning areas.
The City of Jyväskylä is also a majority shareholder of the Jyväskylä Regional
Development Company Jykes Ltd., which was created to promote regional economic
development boosting business opportunities and connecting public and the private sector. It
also counts with the Jyväskylä Innovation Ltd., a development company that seeks to develop
an innovation environment and “to make the Jyväskylä region a thriving international
technological growth centre” (Manninen, 2009).
As highlighted in some studies and interviews, the role of some local and active persons
was instrumental in leveraging change. In particular, it is mentioned the key role of Pekka
Kettunen in charge of the municipality from 1994 to 2004 as a “symbol of the rise of Jyväskylä”
(Linnamaa, 2002: 63). Followed by the political commitment of his successors, capable of
managing the challenges and building a core of creative thinkers from different fields for the
development of ICT and new models of action (Goddard et al., 2006; Linnamaa, 2002;
Sotarauta, 2008). For instance, it is referred the leading role of Professor Pekka Neittaanmäki,
vice-rector of the University at that time and co-founder of Agora Center that foster the
151
Municipal Cultural Activities Act (728/1992, amended 1681/1992) Legislative basis for the Finnish
central government support to non-institutional cultural activities in municipalities
145
interrelation between computational sciences with many human sciences not only at an
academic level but also in regional or national public services. In 1995, it was constituted a
Forum where people from the main organisations of the city and business life participated and
which resulted in a huge programme of investments in the Lake area starting in 1999 (Guidoum,
2010).
Each region has a statutory joint municipal authority, which is responsible for regional
development and planning as well as EU's Structural Funds programmes implementation. In
the case of Central Finland, the Regional Council “collects the common desires and wishes of
the region and put them together” (Regional Council officer). It was responsible for the
approval of the “Regional Development Plan 2030” which defines the regional vision based on
collaboration, entrepreneurship and expertise (Regional Council of Central Finland, n.d).
Regarding the in EU-funded cultural projects, the intermediary role between the municipal
government and the central government is play by the Regional Arts Councils, foundations and
regional authorities (MEC Finland, 2017). Participation in these programs and networks has
benefited the region not only by allocating structural funds but also by exchanging knowledge
and by increasing the relationship between urban and regional development regarding social
cohesion and cultural policies (Kanerva and Mitchell, 2017)152.
Among the diversity of research and education institutions, it is stressed the role of the
University of Jyväskylä and JAMK University of Applied Sciences153, as an essential anchor
for regional development “raising regional competitiveness through innovation and enhancing
the human, social and cultural capital of the region” (Goddard et al., 2006).154 The multidisciplinary University of Jyväskylä is traditionally oriented towards the humanities, and the
Jyväskylä Polytechnic began to develop high expertise in ICT. The University also has an
important tradition in culture, art and music research linked to leading topics such as
digitalisation and technologisation, multiculturalisation, social polarisation, urban and rural
development policy.
152
More information about the Arts Council of Central Finland available on
http://www.taike.fi/en/web/keski-suomi/arts-council-of-keski-suomi.
153
A university or polytechnic of applied sciences is an ammattikorkeakoulu in Finnish, abbreviated
AMK. So, the Jyväskylä Polytechnic is a Finnish institution of higher education that uses the
designation of JAMK University of Applied Sciences.
154
Apart from these, there are also two smaller units of higher education in Jyväskylä region: Air force
C3 Systems School in Jyväskylä Rural Municipality and the Korpilahti Unit of Humanities
Polytechnic HUMAK.
146
As is the whole of Finland, the associative sector in Jyväskylä is very robust, representing
different sectors, interests, and social movements. There are several voluntary associations and
sports clubs which are fundamental to developing a community sense and local social capital.
A representative case about the importance of local and voluntary associations, and at the
same time, of community resistance to the real pressures of the urban regeneration project is
the recovery of the Tanssisali Lutakko (in English: Lutakko Dance Hall). This former bakery
in the harbour area of Lutakko where Jelmu - Live Music Association of Jyväskylä promoted
extremely popular rock concerts was intended for demolition in the City Plan. This non-profit
organisation (founded in 1989 and officially registered in 1990), promoted throughout the
nineties an active live music scene of national reputation. As stated by one of its members “the
city hadn’t any real suggestions for a live music venue… and the scene would die if Jelmu had
no other place to organise such events” (Jelmu responsible). Finally, the building was renovated
with an ERDF grant provided by State Provincial Office of Western Finland, and funds of the
City of Jyväskylä and RAY (Finland’s slot machine association). In addition to the organisation
of events (about 120 to 150 shows a year), it also maintains training studios for local bands and
provides opportunities for other related businesses. The work of the association is mainly done
by young volunteers (about 100) encouraging an environment of citizenship and participation.
The place is recognised as an important social and educational centre and a symbol of youthful
and urban culture155 (see Figure 27.3).
Figure 27.3 Tanssisali Lutakko by Jelmu - Live Music Association.
(photos courtesy of Teppo Laine)
155
Alongside with Jelmu other associations use presently this space: the YAD (Youth Against Drugs)
and the traditional dance association ISOn Tanhuujat ry. Most of the costs are covered by a loan
taken out by the mutual real estate company that owns the building.
147
Cultural artists and actors play an essential role in the city's community development and
wellness strategy. They are called upon to intervene in various initiatives of the municipality,
especially in health and social projects. The artists interviewed while agreeing that culture is
inseparable from personal and collective well-being and recognising their social role, claim for
themselves better social protection and greater participation in political decision-making.
I think that the City Council is beginning to understand the values of artists in this town
(…). They have understood the meaning of a rich cultural life (…) but I think that the
artists are a bit sceptical about local authorities (...). Artists are more concerned about
doing art. But, some [of them] are very interested in what they can learn when they are,
for example, working in the healthcare centre or wherever (Artists/cultural worker).
More, as a Jyväskylä Artists' Association member affirmed it is problematic handling the
“essence of artist work [and the] request of political officers to link culture to innovation and
business” (Jyväskylä Artists Association responsible).
The local cultural environment is nurtured by numerous cultural actors involved in various
institutions and professional organisations as well as longstanding amateur activities, mainly
emanating from drama companies not only in the centre of the city but also in the surrounding
communities.
To conclude, as we noted earlier, the capacity of the local and regional public sector to
promote partnerships with the private sector and the third sector in the implementation of
cooperative initiatives is one of the main characteristics observed in the many networks in
which the city is involved. As declared by Juha Hautanen, head of programme Wellness
Technology of Jyväskylä Polytechnic: “The strength of the Jyväskylä Region is the ability of
different players to bring down the barriers that usually separate them in order to achieve
common goals. All parties are committed to carrying progress forward in an unselfish spirit”
(Tervoja, 2004).
Some key findings
The municipality of Jyväskylä achieved with the last administrative reform a prominent
position in the urban hierarchy of the country. Its location within a vast countryside and the
compact urban centre makes it mostly a city of regional scope, with peaceful and healthy
lifestyles. The need to restructure the region's economy has meant that the local and regional
players are betting in a first stage in the development of an educational cluster with international
visibility and reputation. Afterwards, development agencies have invested in the promotion of
148
innovation and ICTs, opening up opportunities for the emergence of new areas of investment
and preparing the city to compete in the knowledge society. In this sense, the so-called Human
Technology strategy developed by the Municipality combines the promotion of an innovative
and learning region, human capital with technologic advances. Besides, the implementation of
the local strategy is supported by new governance approaches to stimulate cross-sector
collaboration between researcher centres, businesses, and public actors are crucial to the
sustainability of local development policy and planning strategy.
Looking at the rural area of the municipality, the structural changes and the political
administration reforms as in all Finland have changed the way of life and the rural landscape
significantly. The difficulty of maintaining social and cultural services in less populated areas
is pointed out as one of the major problems in the management of this vast area.
However, cultural resources and activities are undoubtedly part of development policies
and planning strategies being exploited, namely, in the renovation of old industrial areas as a
way to legitimise public action in these areas, but also as a way to promote an attractive
environment for new residents and businesses and to engage local citizens.
The region has benefited from EU programs and structural funds which encourage the
relationship between urban and regional development with social cohesion and cultural policies
(Mitchell & Heiskanen, 2011).
Analysing discourse and strategies about culture, it is emphasis its relationship with the
development of individual and collective wellbeing, being part of the welfare state policies.
Many local actors also mentioned that culture is still examined in the strict sense, and the
legitimacy of public funding of culture is increasingly justified by its contribution to other
policies, requesting the need to look at the intrinsic value and autonomy of the cultural field.
Cultural activities are mainly supported by public funds from the municipality and National
and Regional Arts Councils but also by Finnish Cultural Foundation and the Nordic Fund. For
the most part, they focus on the traditional support of artist and performer practices, heritage
safeguard, and cultural institutions (principally museums, libraries, theatre and music
organisations). At the local level, there is a particular focus on initiatives developed for
educational and social objectives especially for the elders and young people. In addition, the
regional government has been actively disseminating the creative industries discourse
following the national and European programs. They mapped the sector and promoted networks
of cooperation among the different actors. Crafts, printmaking and photography are the domains
with a long cultural and social tradition in the region, as well as architecture which is deeply
rooted in Finnish planning and as well as in Jyväskylä.
149
The territorial capital, namely the human, social, cultural and natural features of this urban
community in a rural region and low-density area is used in local development strategy as
competitive advantages. For the quality of the urban fabric, it has contributed particularly the
modern architecture of architect Alvar Aalto which attracts many researchers and curious about
his work, but also a long-term planning tradition, strengthened by new governance approaches
where the citizen is included. Further, the visibility of Jyväskylä as a tourist destination begun
with the organisation of cultural and sports events as well as conference and meetings. The
more recent branding strategy is based on sauna culture experiences, which is part of the
everyday life of many Finnish. Moreover, the education institutions are one of the bases of local
development, attracting not only numerous students and researchers but also business which
take advantage of the existence of high skill workers and distinguished research centres.
As an artist stated, to be outside larger metropolis should not restrictive, because in a smaller
city like Jyvaskyla they are not confined to the region they find forms to create visibility and
improve networks abroad.
To conclude, one of the most cited development goals is to foster people's wellbeing and
health; based on cultural and social values but also strong institutions. As in other areas culture
is seen in a transdisciplinary way, connecting areas such as the arts, welfare, and
entrepreneurship and fostering collaboration between different partners.
c. Óbidos, Centro Region, Portugal
Context analysis
Portugal is a small unitary state and Parliamentary democracy of 10,562,178 inhabitants
(Census 2011) constituted by the territory on the European mainland (in Portuguese:
Continente) and the Azores and Madeira archipelagos156. Local authorities are considered
collective territorial legal persons with representative bodies, whose purpose is to pursue the
interests of the population157. Three categories are considered for the mainland: the commune
156
The Azores and Madeira are autonomous regions endowed with political and administrative
statutes and self-government institutions.
157
Article 235 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
150
(in Portuguese: freguesia), the municipality (in Portuguese: município) and the administrative
region (in Portuguese: região administrativa)158.
With almost 900 years of history, Portugal is one of the oldest nations in Europe. During
the last century, significant political events marked its development, such as the transition from
a constitutional monarchy to a republic under a parliamentary government system (October 5,
1910). Then, the First Republic gave way to a right-wing dictatorial regime (from 1926 to
1974). As illustrated by Boaventura Sousa Santos, Portugal at that time was located between
the semi-peripheral head of its vast colonial empire and a semi-peripheral position in European
context (Santos, 1985, 1991, 1993). The 1960s were marked by participation in the European
Free Trade Association (EFTA); the beginning of independence movements in overseas
possessions, the intensive migratory movement from the countryside to coastal cities and to
several European countries159.
The revolution of 25 April 1974, restored the democracy and put an end to its imperial and
colonial past. However, the dictatorship left huge effects on the political culture and
administrative organisation of the country. After a period of political turmoil and economic
difficulties accentuated by the successive oil shocks (1973 and 1979), Portugal initiated the
process towards the European Community integration. In 1985 assigned with Spain the Treaty
of Accession to EEC with effect from 1 January 1986, which culminated in the adoption of the
euro currency in 2002. The EU membership increased the pressure for the reform of public
policies, concerning the modernisation of socio-economic structures, the reduction of State
direct intervention and reduction of bureaucracy towards a more liberal policy.160
The difficult adjustment to the new monetary environment, the enlargement of the EU to
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; the development of emerging economies like
158
Article 236 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. The former Portuguese administrative
structure considered the following division below the central government: districts (in Portuguese:
distritos), councils (in Portuguese: concelhos) and communes (in Portuguese: freguesias). The
importance of the districts decreased in recent years and some administrative, financial and political
competencies have been delivered to Regional Coordination and Development Commissions and
municipalities.
159
The EFTA was signed in Stockholm on 4 January 1960, of which Portugal was a founding member
together with Austria, Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland. The exit
of this organisation occurred with the integration in the EEC.
160
An analysis of the consequences of European Union integration couldn’t be made here given the
complexity of the theme.
151
China; the 2008/2009 financial crisis followed by the 2010 sovereign debt crisis are some of
the events which exposed the vulnerabilities of the Portuguese economy (Lourtie, 2011;
Rodrigues and Adão e Silva, 2012). Subsequently, the requests for foreign aid and the austerity
programs implemented posed numerous challenges for the country and the intervention and
coordination of public policies, particularly at the local level.
As in other countries, after the constitutional reform of 1976, Portugal have tried, albeit in
a discontinuous way, to move from a highly centralised and bureaucratic government to a more
decentralised one161. Often, this process is only a process of deconcentration, by delegating
powers to other entities, such as the Regional Coordination and Development Commission (in
Portuguese: Comissões de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional – CCDR), which under
the supervision of the Central Government are responsible for the implementation of the
regional operational programmes provided for by the Community Support Framework for
Portugal and supporting and monitoring regional economic development in their respective
geographic areas (Keynes Srl, 2006; CoE, 2007; DGT, 2016).
The extension of the competences of local governments together with the reduction of funds
transfers from the state budget and the reduction of local tax revenues led to the adoption in
recent years of different organisational arrangements by the municipalities, such as public
companies, inter-municipal companies, outsourcing, among other, for the provision of public
services.
Territorial planning is an essential obligation of the State, and the definition of policies in
this field is a responsibility of the Government, the Autonomous Regions and the Local
Authorities. The directives for regional and local development are established in the National
Spatial Policy Programme “PNPOT – Programa Nacional para as Políticas de Ordenamento do
Território” (2007) which articulates with Sectorial Plans and Special Spatial Plans.
The instruments at the municipal level are called “PMOT - Planos Municipais de
Ordenamento do Território” (Municipal Spatial Plan) that vary not only according to the area
of intervention, but mainly according to the scale of intervention, namely: “PDM - Plano Diretor
Municipal” (Municipal Master Plan), “PU - Plano de Urbanização” (Urbanisation Plan), and
“PP - Plano de Pormenor” (Detail Plan). They establish the land use regime and regulations,
161
The system of distribution of powers between the various categories of local and regional
authorities was established by the Portuguese Law No. 159/99 and Law 169/99, the latter amended
by Law 5-A/2002. It is based on the principles of decentralisation and self-government with the
transfer of central government responsibilities to the local authority organs.
152
following the national and regional guidelines and specific strategic development options at the
local level, which includes the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity and the natural,
landscape and cultural heritage.
To perceive better the case here in analysis, we must look explicitly to the cultural policies
in Portugal since the dictatorial regime of “Estado Novo”162. During this period, culture was
dominated by propagandistic reasons in order to promote the nationalist and imperialist vision
of the regime. And, to this end, an imagined community and a sense of identity were promoted
through celebrations, exhibitions and symbols as well as an extensive program of public works
where is included the classification and restoration of numerous historic buildings, monuments
and traditional and historic urban cores (e.g. Lima dos Santos, 1998; Lira, 2002; Corkill and
Almeida, 2007; Pedreirinho, 2013).
Following the democratic revolution of 1974, the State was progressively involved in the
financing of the arts and culture, parallel to the consolidation of the welfare state. The objectives
of its action in cultural matters focused on the principles of the democratisation of culture, based
mainly on the generalisation of access to culture and cultural enjoyment through a model of
decentralisation (e.g. Lima dos Santos, 1988; Anico, 2009). However, it was not until the 1980s
that more consistent measures for the implementation of this model began to take place, in
which municipalities assume a new role in the cultural and educational area (Silva et al., 2013).
To this end, it has contributed the creation and recovery of cultural infrastructures organised in
networks of libraries and archives, theatres and cine-theatres, and museums via partnerships
between central and local governments (Silva, 2004). Cultural policies and services have turned
more and more a responsibility of local governments, covering from the management of cultural
facilities and provision of art education initiatives to the support of a wide range of practices,
especially festive and popular manifestations, linked to the identity of places.
As Eduardo Brito Henriques (2002) points out, there have been increasingly perceptible
signs of a change in the role of the State in the cultural field through the adoption of actions
towards a) the de-monopolisation, privatisation and liberalisation of certain public services,
especially in the media sector; b) strengthening public-private partnerships, looking for ways
to manage and finance culture, for example through the creation of foundations; and c) the
introduction of commercial criteria in the cultural activity of the public sector (ibid.). Despite
162
Name given to the authoritarian regime installed in Portugal which with the entry into force of the
new Constitution in 1933 enabled Salazar to build a New State (in Portuguese: Estado Novo).
153
these trends, there is a continuity in the model of public participation in the field of culture, in
which the State continues to play an interventionist role, even in a paternalist way in some
sectors of culture.163 This position is justified by the existence of a notion of culture as a
collective necessity to which the State must respond through its public agencies, even if in some
cases it acts in collaboration with the private sector and civil society (Anico, 2009),
simultaneously with a persistent disapproval of attempts at commodification and more elitist
approaches to culture.
National cultural policies also revealed a growing internationalisation through participation
in projects and networks and the promotion of Portuguese identity symbols, as well as the
professionalization of the administration of the cultural sector and growth in public attendance
(Lima dos Santos, 1998; Silva, 2007).
The funding provided by the European programs allowed a sustained investment in culture,
however, and especially after the crisis of 2008, the subsequent governments reduced their
cultural budgets (Silva et al., 2015; Garcia et al., 2016). This resulted in disinvestments and
discontinuities in cultural action, and an increment of the asymmetry in the geographic
distribution of cultural producers and in the access of citizens to the diversity of cultural goods
(Garcia et al., 2016). These cuts have also affected municipalities, although, despite budgetary
constraints, they are increasingly active in building and preserving cultural infrastructures,
promotion of local heritage, regular programming of artistic and cultural events at national and
international level.
In recent years, the potential of tangible and intangible heritage as an identity element and
resource for the development strategies of the country and its localities has gained prominence.
Following the global trends, the cultural and creative industries became part of the political
discourse supported by several studies on the contribution of the sector to the economy and
community programmes (Mateus, 2010; Pinto, 2012). 164
163
After the revolution, cultural affairs are under the responsibility of several ministries or under the
tutelage of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. In 1983-85, the culture became an
independent ministerial responsibility area, but only returned to be autonomous from 1995 to 2011
and finally since 2015 to the present day.
164
The report of Augusto Mateus & Associados (2010) states that the CCI sector at national level
represented 2.8% of the GVA and generates 3.7 billion Euros in 2006, which corresponds to 2.6%
of jobs created.
154
Within the Oeste sub-region, Western Coastal Region of Portugal, a predominantly rural
region according the EU classification applied to NUTS 3 regions (Eurostat, 2012) contained
by the Centro Region of Portugal (NUTS 2) is situated the municipality of Óbidos (LAU 1) (see
Figure 28.3 and Annexe C).165
Figure 28.3 Location of Óbidos Municipality, in Oeste sub-region and Centro Region
(adapted from CCDRC, 2011 and Turismo de Portugal, 2013)
This municipality belongs to the district of Leiria, a short distance from the cities of Caldas
da Rainha, Peniche and on the route to the pilgrim centre of Fatima. It is a short distance from
Lisbon, the Portuguese capital (about 80 km north and less than an hour drive) and with fast
connections to other major cities such as Coimbra and Porto. It covers an area of 141.6 square
kilometre with only 11,689 inhabitants (Census 2011), representing an increase of population
relative to Census 2001. It enjoys a diverse geomorphological environment, determined by a
unique natural landscape dotted by several small rural settlements and a lagoon ecosystem that
ends at the Atlantic Ocean.
165
In the Portuguese case, there are three NUTS 1, the mainlaind (in Portuguese: Continente) and the
two autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira. They are subdivided in seven NUTS 2 regions:
Norte (North); Centro (Centre); Área Metropolitana de Lisboa (Lisbon Metropolitan Area);
Alentejo; Algarve; Região Autónoma dos Açores (Autonomous Region of the Azores); Região
Autónoma da Madeira (Autonomous Region of Madeira). Each region is subdivided into 25 NUTS
3 sub-regions. The LAU 1 correspond to 308 municipalities and the LAU 2 to 3092 freguesias (civil
parishes).
155
The “vila” of Óbidos, a
small town in the Portuguese
urban system, is the seat of the
municipality currently divided
in 7 civil parishes (Figure
29.3).
Óbidos
is
primarily
distinguished by its iconic
image: the medieval walled
town with narrow streets and
traditional white houses. From
its foundation attributed to the
Celts in 308 B.C., its strategic
Figure 29.3 Óbidos Municipality
(adapted from http://www.cm-obidos.pt)
location gave it always a privileged status, having been the scene of significant historical events.
After D. Afonso II, King of Portugal gave it to his wife, Queen D. Urraca, in 1210, the town
became the property of the kings’ consorts, with the title of “Casa das Rainhas” (in English:
House of Queens). It became part of the traditional dowry of Portuguese queens when King D.
Dinis offered the town as a wedding gift to his wife, D. Isabel in 1282. Hence, it was converted
into a refuge of the nobility, which sponsored a set of civil and religious buildings central to
local development (e.g., the aqueduct, the pillory, the “São João Baptista” church) and
stimulated a unique cultural environment that attracted a set of artists such as Josefa d’Óbidos,
one of the greatest figures of Portuguese Baroque painting of the seventeenth century.
In 1755, the Lisbon earthquake destroyed many buildings in Óbidos. Then, in 1833 the
“Casa das Rainhas” was abolished due to political and administrative reforms which led to the
abandonment and deterioration of the town.
The town was already mentioned in the XIX century British tourist itineraries interested in
discovering the Portuguese architectural heritage. In the transition to the twentieth century,
during the regime of the First Republic, several initiatives have been carried out in the village
to promote the tourism industry, as the classification of Óbidos as a tourist resort (1928) by the
“Comissões de Iniciativa de Turismo”, the local delegation of the Tourism Office. In addition
to the classification of the Castle as National Monument in 1910 and the extension of this
recognition to the entire walled centre in 1951, many civil and religious buildings were
intervened, along with the recovery of a set of civil and religious fairs and celebrations. The
town became a reference for urban intervention for the rehabilitation and conservation of
156
historic centres, as part of the regime strategy of celebration of the past and national identity (to
know more about the history of Óbidos, see for example, Garcia and Caetano, 2007; Prista,
2013; Soares and Neto, 2013).
The processes of re-creation and commodification of the historical core led to a
reconfiguration of local economic and social structures. The intensification of tourists’ flows
did not prevent the exodus and the ageing of the population, and on the other, the growth of
service activities.166
Located in a fertile area, agriculture has always been central to the regional economy,
principally horticulture, fruit and wine production. The industrial sector, food processing,
construction and furniture are also relevant economic activities. However, as already
mentioned, tourism and related services acquired a preponderate position in the local economy
being accountable for a large percentage of employment. The Óbidos Lagoon, a coastal lagoon
system of about 6.9 square kilometres, is a privileged ecosystem for the observation of
numerous water birds and migratory birds as well as for sports and recreational practices,
crucial in the local strategy of tourist diversification. Besides, the natural resource is pointed by
residents as an essential element for the quality of life of the municipality (Figure 30.3).
Figure 30.3 Óbidos natural and rural landscape (author’s photo)
Process analysis
As previously mentioned, after the classification and recovery of Óbidos' castle and walled
urban centre, local politics focused mainly on developed it as the tourist destination based on
166
According to INE, the national statistical institute, in 1950 the municipality had 11,716 inhabitants
and only returned to a close value in the last census of 2011.
157
the exceptional value of its artistic, cultural and historical heritage, supported by the nationalist
policies of the “Estado Novo”, while maintaining the rural matrix in the rest of the municipality.
Extensive interventions by Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais
(Directorate General of National Buildings and Monuments), followed a medieval scenographic
ideal by cultivating the idea of a “museum town” as a reconstitution of a crystallised narrative
of the past (Soares and Neto, 2013). In complement, the municipality executed urban
improvements and measures of coercion to the realisation of works and other municipal
regulations intending to harmonise the architectural image of Óbidos (Figure 31.3).
Figure 31.3 View of the walled town of Óbidos (author’s photo)
They also focus on the creation and diffusion of an internationally recognisable image, the
recovery of local traditions and celebrations; the inauguration of cultural facilities, such as the
contemporary art gallery “Galeria Ogiva” and the Municipal Museum (1970). These measures
were validated by cultural elites, who came to visit the village or even inhabit it, seasonally or
permanently.
After the 1980s, the municipality maintained the strategies of “touristification”, that is, the
urban revitalisation process for tourism objectives. Among the investments made are the
repurpose of some notable buildings as cultural facilities and in the organisation of events
158
dedicated to the arts and classical music; the creation of the Tourist Day; the support of some
ethnographic customs as well as works of requalification (Garcia, 2001)167.
The Óbidos Municipal Master Plan that should define the convenient use of natural
resources, the environment and cultural heritage, making the zoning of the municipal territory
was ratified in 1996. The approval of the Plan allowed the development of a new municipal
strategy aimed at the development of residential tourism in the region168. Supported by demand
from central and northern Europe and encouraged by national and regional plans, as well as
National Strategic Tourism Plan, it was encouraged the construction resorts and the
development of second home and golf tourism (Ferreira, 2011; Pardal, 2012; Patuleia, 2011).
This strategy has the objective to increase the supply of jobs and boosting local economic
activities was maintained by the local authority after a change in political leadership, even
though they defended the need to revise the Municipal Master Plan. The reduction of
investments with the international financial crisis, besides the growing pressure and
mischaracterisation of the natural landscape, reinforced the decision of local authorities to
suspend the execution of the Master Plan (decision approved in 2008)169 to reduce construction
in areas closer to the sea and Óbidos Lagoon. To define a new territorial model, they amend
this regulatory tool (entitled “Alteração ao Plano Diretor Municipal de Óbidos na área do Bom
Sucesso”) that finally came into force in 2013170.
The territorial development model that supports the Master Plan review is based on the
disruptive strategy defined by the local government team around creativity. As repeated by the
former Mayor Telmo Faria171 in many conversations, this strategic approach began by creating
the perception that in Óbidos, despite its size “was possible to create, to give rise, to make
happen. To achieve this, it was only required that innovation and the bet on differentiation were
clear, audacious and visible to everyone” (Faria, 2009: 72).
This has been pursued since 2002 when the local authority has focused on boost an agenda
of thematic events throughout the year supported by a network of municipal cultural facilities.
Soon, Óbidos became recognised for its numerous events which attracted thousands of tourists
167
See also the General Chronology of the History of Óbidos available at the website of the
Municipality (http://www.cm-obidos.pt/catalogs/?category=24&page=23)
168
Resolution of Council of Ministers no. 187/96.
169
Resolution of Council of Ministers no. 33/2008.
170
Published in Diário da República, 2ª serie, nº 114/2013.
171
The municipality was led by the Mayor Telmo Faria that completed a consecutive 12-year cycle,
2001-2013, and was succeeded by his vice-mayor Humberto Marques.
159
to the small town. The diversified agenda includes the “Medieval Fair of Óbidos”, with large
participation of the local associations; the “June for the Arts”, a contemporary art event; the
popular “International Chocolate Festival”, or the distinctive “International Piano Week of
Óbidos”. The intricate organisation involved in their production has created a highly
professional and specialised team in cultural animation in the Municipality.
This strategy led to the development of a distinctive territorial brand “Óbidos Criativa” (in
English: Creative Óbidos). The aim was to affirm the territory linking the areas of culture,
innovation and economy, not forgetting the rural matrix of the municipality and environmental
sustainability. To manage some these initiatives the local authority opted for an organisational
model based on two municipal companies: the “Óbidos Patrimonium” and “Óbidos
Requalifica”172.
Progressively, these events were an impetus behind the development of a set of new creative
skills and the emergence of innovative businesses and activities, which creatively
(re)interpreting local tangible and intangible assets and combine new and old traditions. An
example of this is the “International Chocolate Festival of Óbidos” which offers tastings,
workshops, presentations of producers and distributors of chocolate and derivatives, among
other experiences related to chocolate. In addition to the direct revenues of the festival’s ticket
sales and sponsorships; the improvement of low season activity activities and the dynamisation
of the region’ schools; the Festival also stimulated the emergence of creative experiences and
businesses based on endogenous products. An illustrative case is the Oppidum company that
owns the “Ginja de Óbidos” brand. This local firm expanded the commercialisation of sour
cherry liqueur and launched gourmet products derived from this fruit and combined with
chocolate. More recently, it has registered the “Rota da Ginja” brand (sour cherry route), that
provides visits and tasting experiences at the manufacturing site (Pimpão 2016).
The success of the events and the emergence of correlated innovative activities led the
Municipality to think in the development a creative economy approach. As remember by
Miguel Silvestre, Executive Director of Óbidos Technology Park173:
172
According to António Marques (2012) most public companies were created for Portuguese
municipalities to release themselves from the legal constraints of public law and accounting, using
private law instruments and forms to more effectively carry out their missions (about this theme see
also Amorim, 2000; Rodrigues and Araújo, 2006; among others).
173
The former Deputy Mayor of Óbidos City Council (2010-2012) and Coordinator of the Óbidos
Criativa Municipal Company.
160
It had a lot to do with the alignment that we had, in political and strategic terms, with
the debate that was emerging at the time across Europe on the creative industries. The
first conference we did with INTELI at Casa da Música generated a series of debates
that gave rise to our application for Creative Clusters Network. From that point on, we
became enmeshed in what was the discourse of this area and we were recognised by the
chosen approach: the point of view of a low-density territory.
Assisted by the INTELI, a Portuguese think tank, Óbidos submitted a candidature for the
URBACT programme to constitute a collaborative network with other low-density urban areas.
The Creative Clusters network (2008-2011)174 allowed them to identify good practices in other
European cities and publicised the local approach internationally and in local community175,
consolidating the objectives of transform creativity in an essential vector of local development.
Following the national policy directives for the administrative and pedagogical
(re)organisation of the school network, the Municipal Council of Education of Óbidos was
created in December 2003176 that led to the approval the local educational charter, entitled
“Carta Educativa do Concelho de Óbidos” (CMO, 2005)177.
The necessity of closing some primary schools178 was seen as an opportunity to for
investing in the construction of new school complexes (carried out in the period 2008-2010),
but also to achieve greater autonomy in their management and the reformulation of the
educational model. Although the former executive managed to lower the illiteracy rate from
27.7% (1981) to 14.0% (2001), this was still far above the national average of 8.9% (2001)179.
Thus, one of the primary goals of the executive at that time was to reduce this severe social
174
Óbidos was the leader partner of the Creative Clusters network (Urbact II, 2008-2011) in a
partnership with Barnsley (UK), Catanzaro (Italy), Enguera (Spain), Hódmezóvásarhely (Hungary),
Mizil (Romania), Reggio Emilia (Italy), Viareggio (Italy) and the INTELI (Portugal).
175
It was mandatory of the URBACT programme to constituted a Local Action Group (LAG) to
involve local stakeholders in the city vision. As a programme outcome, it was produced a Local
Action Plan (LAP) that summarises the strategy outlined by the executive.
176
In compliance with the Decree-Law no. 7/2003 of January 15.
177
It is a tool for planning and prospective planning of the education network of a municipality
defined in Article 10, Decree-Law no. 7/2003 of 15 January.
178
The Portuguese Law 35/88 of 4 February establishes the closing of the schools with ten or less
students. Later in 2010 a new Resolution determined that schools with less than 21 students should
also be closed on the grounds that they “limit students’ academic success” and “present rates of
school failure above the national average.” (Resolution of the Council of Ministers n. 44/2010).
179
Illiteracy rate, according to the Census Sources INE, PORDATA (2015) http://www.pordata.pt
161
problem further. Furthermore, as is clarified in the same document, the educational action
should be progressively extended to a multitude of local actors beyond the school community,
which constitutes a “new ways of thinking and acting on globalisation at the local level of
educational activity, combining it with development strategies” (CMO, 2005). As corroborated
by the responsible of the coordinator of Óbidos Municipality Educational Department
interviewed:
We had to build the local educational identity (…) a territorial education model based
on creativity and innovation, what we called Óbidos Creative Approach [especially] in
the transition between the pre-school and the first-cycle. (…) [This is] closely connected
with the strategic vision of the Council on the development of the territory (...) in
association with the economy and the events180.
Subsequently, they consolidated this approach collaborating with local, national and
international partners like HEI or the Óbidos Technology Park; and participating in networks,
for instance, with the Italian Municipality of Reggio Emilia and the Danish Municipality of
Gentofte. They also developed diverse intervention projects that transcend the classroom,
namely the “Fábrica da Criatividade” (Creativity Factory), MyMachine or deCode academy
(Figure 32.3).
Thus, the municipal educational project, developed in a predominantly rural community, is
articulated with partnerships and projects in different social areas where local power has
responsibilities such as health promotion, poverty reduction, elder care, etc. (about this topic
see Canário, 1995, 2000, 2004; Godinho et al., 2011; Godinho, 2012). An example is the project
Odesign that joins young designers and seniors, combining design and creativity with
traditional techniques and skills.
Meanwhile, the local authority launched in 2005 a Network of Investigation, Innovation
and Knowledge with the objective of investigating the territory of Óbidos in a multidisciplinary
way. These monographs should form the basis for a UNESCO World Heritage application
which was not completed but had provided technical and scientific tools to support the planning
and management of the region181.
180
The local educational concept called Óbidos Creative Approach is formally established with the
presentation in 2012 of a Strategic Plan for Education in Óbidos (CMO, n.d.: 11).
181
http://www.rede.cm-obidos.pt/Home/UI/HomeUI.aspx
162
Figure 32.3 “Fábrica da Criatividade” ateliers
(photos courtesy of Ana Sofia Godinho)
The participation in collaborative networks, commonly through European programmes,
was always seen an opportunity to enhance the visibility and recognition of Óbidos and a way
to achieve more scale and critical mass. More example could be listed as the national Creative
Economy Network (REC - Rede de Economia Criativa); the “Creative SpIN” project182; or the
ECOS – Energy and Sustainable Construction project in environment field.183
In 2009, the municipality launched an action plan focused on the attraction and qualification
of talents, job creation, wealth growth and the improvement of the quality of life. As expressed
by the Mayor Telmo Faria in Óbidos LAP:
Creativity can be a concept of political intervention in the territory, but it must be more
than that, it must be a real change in approach between generations, who interpret the
same space differently. Creativity can be seen not only to regenerate cities and regions
182
A URBACT Thematic Network that connects culture and CCI with other sectors of the economy
and public/social services to stimulate creative spillovers and contribute to innovation. The partners
are the City Council of Birmingham (UK), Rotterdam (NL), Mons (BE), Bologna (IT), Essen (DE),
Kortrijk (BE) besides the Wrocław Agglomeration Development Agency (PL), Tallin Creative Hub
(EE), Košice 2013 European Capital of Culture (SK).
183
Submitted to the Program “Urban Network for Competitiveness and Innovation”, of the “Política
das Cidades POLIS XXI” (urban policy strategy).
163
to revitalize the economy, but also to raise a new relationship in politics, moisturizing
an aging system and creating new actors (CMO, 2011: 3).
This document established a set of projects in some priority areas which were more oriented
to creative production while maintaining their focus on a cultural environment of excellence
and high-quality tourism.
Therefore, the municipality has bet on the coordination of existing resources in conjunction
with investments in new attractions to attract a greater number of visitors with a differentiated
profile, create an environment favourable to the development of new business and the fixing of
residents. One of its strategic priorities was to attract creative and qualified individuals and
companies through the provision of infrastructures and the promotion of a favourable
environment to live and work (Rivas, 2008; Selada et al., 2011). As noted by INTELI’s Head
Cities Unit, Catarina Selada, this idea is informed by the “creative ecosystem” concept184
delineated to stimulate the creative economy in a low-density urban area.
This model aims to underline the relationship between creativity and territory, interlinking
three components: 1) Economy (cultural and creative companies and organisations); 2) Place
(the spaces of cultural and creative production and consumption; 2) People (the creative talents,
i.e., people with skills and personal abilities that nurture creativity, with an entrepreneurial spirit
enhancing the creation of innovative businesses).
In this sense, new facilities and infrastructures were created in Óbidos. Such is the case of
Óbidos Technological Park and a business incubator called ABC - Basic Support for Creativity.
These answered to the lack of business spaces and the strategy of the last NSRF - National
Strategic Reference Framework (2007-2013)185 that incentives the establishing of scientific and
technological parks. For its management, the municipality created an association called
OBITEC that includes universities, training schools, business associations and companies. They
also outlined a financial package of benefits to attract companies (e.g., tax incentives,
microcredit, etc.).
Also, this framework it was created an urban policy instrument called “Urban Regeneration
Partnerships” that has been implemented in several Portuguese cities. Supported by this
program, Óbidos’ municipality initiated the rehabilitation of a set of abandoned buildings in the
inner centre to new creative uses: from “live and work” and “just live” houses; to spaces to
184
185
Developed for the Creative Cluster Network by INTELI
NSRF is the short term for National Strategic Reference Framework which determines the
application of the Community’s policy for the period 2007-2013.
164
“creative retail” and “events and performances” (CMO, 2011). Among those is the “Espaço Ó”
(former EPIC – Space for the Promotion of Innovation and Creativity) that includes an area to
hold events, conferences or exhibitions, a commercial area, spaces for studios and a Colab
space186 (Figure 33.3).
Figure 33.3 Colab at Espaço Ó (author’s photo)
The later reflects the municipality's willingness to attract professionals and creative
entrepreneurs, facilitated by the face-to-face and informal contact with the executive, as
explained by one of the Colab founders, an old resident of the municipality who lived for a long
time abroad: “this openness made it possible to implement quickly the project and at the same
time [the de-bureaucratisation of the process] allowed us to experiment and mature a specific
model for Óbidos”. On the other hand, he pointed out the difficulty of affordable rent homes in
the city for entrepreneurs who want to stay temporarily or settle there. However, he recognised
that the creative spaces that are being built by the municipality are an incentive to boost this
market.
Environmental issues have also been a central theme in the discourses about the local
strategy. In late 2007, it was launched the Program “Óbidos Social Carbon” to improve
initiatives that reduce carbon emissions, provide a lower release of carbon and protect the
environment. This is an innovative initiative that brings together local authorities,
environmental groups, business and community.
186
Colab is a work platform that promotes the sharing of ideas and processes and space, tools and
technologies to develop projects in co-ownership.
165
Recently, a new ambitious initiative emerged to shape a new perception of Óbidos. Urged
to compete in the contest launched by the city to open a bookstore in the space of the old church
of Santiago, “Ler Devagar”187, a private entity proposed the implementation of a larger project
“Óbidos Literary Town” with the opening of 11 bookstores and the creation of various events
throughout the year aiming to mark the literary calendar This vision, which seemed “pure
fiction” (as assumed in the slogan of project) turned out to gather the consensus of most people,
and they already opened seven bookstores in such diverse places as museums, churches and
markets.
In 2015, Óbidos held the first literary festival FOLIO (Óbidos International Literary
Festival) reinventing itself once again through literature and all associated arts. This project
was inspired by the literary festival FLIP held in the Brazilian city of Paraty and in the small
Welsh city of Hay-on-Wye, which holds 40 second-hand bookstores and an annual literary,
music and entertainment festival. The diversify program has the capacity to mobilise a broad
audience including students and teachers from different levels of education (Figure 34.3).
Figure 34.3 Óbidos Literary Town: Bookstores and Folio 2017 (author’s photo).
187
The project “Óbidos Literary Town” is an initiative of Ler Devagar, a public limited liability
company that manages editorial funds. It has the support of Óbidos’ Municipality and the municipal
company Óbidos Criativa.
166
Finally, this commitment culminated in the nomination of Óbidos as a Creative City of
Literature by UNESCO in December 2015. The integration in this international network of
Creative Cities can be of great value to its development congregating more actors and
legitimising policy options.
The current mayor highlights some initiatives in local strategy and clarifies the path to be
drawn in the future in which culture continues to play a fundamental role:
The events allowed us to gain notoriety, the right of choice exercised by the Chamber
in the purchase of real estate allowed us to launch the urban regeneration programme
but also the growth of a community, which is the best guarantee for the sustainability of
public policies (...) We tried to keep a low-density environment with good
infrastructures, schools, etc. and high quality of life. However, we need to be able to set
people, attract the best human assets. Culture is seen as a catalyst to attract this critical
mass that can help us have a stronger community” (Meeting in Folio 2015).
To boost local development, it has been and remains extremely important to “foster
relationships beyond the town walls” (Member of an educational institution).
Actors analysis
In Óbidos, the local authority is the main driver and the actor of development. More, as it
is referred to “in a territory like Óbidos” a disruptive strategy like this, “is only possible with a
politically strong leadership, although the municipality encourages other actors to be proactive”
(Member of a non-departmental public organisation). Given that “there is a gap between the
will of the Executive and the local society”. Added to the “difficulty in involving people in the
strategy because it forces them to involve them in change” (Member of a public cultural
institution).
It is with Telmo Faria in the leadership that this change in local politics begins. The longterm commitment to the vision of the Mayor and his team, ensured by the current executive,
was essential to achieving the goal of turning culture and creativity into a driving force for local
development. As the current mayor, Humberto Marques confirmed (this opinion is unanimous
among the interviewees):
“When the former mayor took office, the patrimony was understood only in terms of
contemplation, it was untouchable, lifeless, which resulted in the absence of urban and
social regeneration. After that, the executive of which I was a part, has bet heavily on
creativity and innovation as a way of reinventing itself” (Meeting in Folio, 2015).
167
The municipality was able to bring together in its team a group of qualified and openminded people who have tried new paths, some with more success than others, and have built
several fundamental networks for local development.
The municipal companies, the Óbidos Patrimonium and Óbidos Requalifica was the
mechanism selected to manage the public initiatives. The first, established in 2004, was
dedicated to the production of tourist and cultural events and the management of social and
sports facilities. The second founded in 2006, focused on the urban regeneration, development
projects related to alternative energy sources and management of the Technologic Park. Now
they were joined by the public limited company Óbidos Creative.
The municipality is responsible for the management of a set of cultural facilities as the
network of Municipal Museums and Galleries - constituted by the Municipal Museum; the
Parish Museum, Abílio de Mattos e Silva Museum, NovaOgiva Gallery and Pelourinho House
Gallery.
Despite that the Council had a crucial role in triggering local projects, they are aware that
the sustainability of local development includes the involvement of diverse stakeholders in local
initiatives: from educational institutions to business associations and social organisations.
Partnerships enhanced local capacity and linked the different strategic dimensions. Among
them stands out the alliances in the organisation of events, as is the recent case of FOLIO where
the local executive, entrepreneurs, schools, museums and galleries, etc. are involved in carrying
out this festival. As stated by the interviewees:
Our scale is an added value because it's easier to move around because we are more
easily identified in the community (...) it is easier to be with people, there is an emotional
proximity (...) The territory is not an obstacle (Member of a public cultural institution).
The OBITEC – Óbidos Association for Science and Technology established in March 2010
is a local key stakeholder in the promotion of CCIs. It joins the local authority to some areas of
partners and different skills such as educational institutions, technology companies and
business associations in the management of Technologic Park and the incubator ABC188. The
main business partners of this strategy are the regional business association named AIRO Associação Empresarial da Região do Oeste189 and, at the local level, the association of
companies named Óbidos.com190.
188
For more information see http://www.obidosparque.com/
http://www.airo.pt/
190
www.obidos.com.pt
189
168
The intensification of the tourist flow with all the negative aspects mobilised the local
intellectual elites to create an association for the heritage safeguard in 1989: the “Associação
de Defesa do Património do Concelho de Óbidos”. They are particularly involved in the
revitalisation of the religious traditions that understood like the authentic component of Óbidos.
The most famous are the Holy Week celebrations that are specifically geared towards the local
community, but also bring numerous tourists to the city.
These local elites have been actively involved in local discussion groups on the future of
the city, such as the creative network clusters, and are often quite reluctant to pursue the
strategy. The lack of familiarity with the issues of creativity creates some resistance,
considering that it introduces “a set of new words that a large part of the community has not yet
managed to anchor and perceive in all these ideas” (Member of an association). Thus, the need
to improve communication and increase community participation is recurrently mentioned as
fundamental, not only regarding young people and elites but above all “it is necessary to involve
other people in this image, particularly those who live in villages rural” (Member of a public
cultural institution).
However, interviews and local discussion groups have shown the great difficulty of
involving community members. Despite this, there has been an effort to take advantage of the
numerous sports, cultural and recreational associations as well as the facilities to respond to
children and senior citizens existing in various parishes. Many of these institutions have
protocols with the Municipality and participate actively in the politics in local events such as
the medieval fair or “Maiando o Maio”, an ancient ritual with more than 2,000 years.
Most of the residents interviewed who moved to Óbidos pointed out the quality of life
resulting from the existing natural amenities as the most relevant factor of the attractiveness of
the municipality. The main criticisms are related to an excessive number of daily visitors
attracted by the picturesque streets and mega-events as well as the inexistence of services of
convenience to those who live in the walled village, turning it almost exclusively into a
“scenario”. However, residents in the surrounding villages have benefited from these dynamics,
with new businesses and local products and infrastructure and projects for the community
emerging.
It is necessary to bring to Óbidos another dimension beyond the events. Transforming
this inhabited space (...) strengthening the cultural component (...) to create a path of
sustainability. The “Óbidos Literary Town” can be an array for the future of Óbidos,
connecting it with the technological park and other spaces (Member of a public cultural
institution).
169
As we have seen above, educational institutions are clearly one of the main actors and a
pillar in the development of Óbidos' approach in all its dimensions. The municipal school
network, close to the political power, establishes the fundamental bonds with the community,
promoting not only its development but also the innovation and the sustainability of the creative
strategy. In addition to the local institutions, cooperation projects with educational institutions
at regional, national and international levels have been fundamental, filling the deficits or
allowing them to gain scale and notoriety.
Finally, we highlight the role of change agents, people who have been challenged or
challenged, local authorities for new projects and who have collaborated in local dynamics.
This is the case of people like Mafalda Milhões, José Pinho or Pedro Reis, the first two involved
in the project of the Literary Town and the third in the development of a space of collaboration
and creative entrepreneurship. These agents who shared the rhetoric of creativity and
innovation, have a great capacity for internal and external mobilisation, have discovered in
Óbidos a space for the accomplishment of their projects, which in turn help to construct a new
imaginary of the city.
Some key findings
Local identity and development path of Óbidos Municipality is strongly rooted in its
historical heritage but also linked to its rural features. However, based on the knowledge
acquired in the new model of culture-led development used in many cities for its revitalisation,
local authorities decided to invest in creating strong place branding strategy to communicate its
uniqueness to attract the visitors, residents, and investors. The “Creative Óbidos” strategy aims
to translate in an innovative way the existing cultural and symbolic capital and, at the same
time, promote a new imaginary linked to the creative economy. Contrary to the apparent
impossibility of territories with the same characteristics of Óbidos - low density and mostly
rural population - in participating in this type of economy as affirmed by many experts, local
authorities staked on building networks to gain scale and visibility and opened informal
approaches and collaborations that make possible to experiment innovative ideas. The longterm political commitment with these principles guaranteed the implementation of several
initiatives. Alongside, the promotion of events, recreating the past but also creating of new
traditions and experiences, the local authority has been betting in the realisation of the new
municipal education approach; the construction of infrastructures and programs to foster the
rise of businesses and to attract talents and entrepreneurs; among other initiatives.
170
Further, and as in precedent cases, local political options put a number of issues regarding
authenticity and the sustainability of the strategy in environmental and community terms. The
equilibrium of the community daily experiences and styles with the events and the
characteristics of the most of its inhabitants are a challenge for local authorities. The
municipality assumes itself as a test laboratory that can experiment easily solutions and make
it able to pursue a new path by giving “many small steps”.
Moreover, the Municipality is the main coordinator and inductor of the local strategy given
the difficulty of most local actors to participate and improve new initiatives.
Rather than simply reproducing global receipts about the “creative city” and “the creative
class”, Óbidos seeks to take advantage of the features of its territory, the multiple partnerships
and networks as well as the available funds for local development, in order to promote the
creation of a sustainable ecosystem based on culture-creativity-economy. The future of this
ecosystem has been supported mostly by the investments in a creative education system and
several projects that promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
d. City of York, England, United Kingdom
Context analysis
The United Kingdom is a parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy. This
unitary country is composed of England and three devolved administrations delegated by the
Parliament of UK government: Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. It has a total of 65
million inhabitants with 74% of its population living in predominantly urban areas.
The evolution of urban and regional policy in the United Kingdom follows the ideological
changes of successive governments and persistent regional disparities. Over the past decades,
institutional reforms with impact on the spatial development and the formulation of cultural
policies were carried out in the UK. Notably, the reorganisation of local government in the
allocation of certain public services to private sector and non-profit organisations through
outsourcing, public-private partnerships and other policy instruments.
Recently, the UK Government in the pursuit for greater efficiency abolished the Regional
Development Agencies and Regional Assemblies that constituted the sub-national tier of
171
government, which took place on March 31st, 2012191. In their place were created Local
Enterprise Partnerships, hereafter LEP, which are described as “joint local authority-business
bodies” (HMG, 2010) to promote local economic development. As a result, 39 subnational units
were approved by Central Government that are not based on functional economic geography,
but rather consortia of local authorities. They adopted different legal forms, institutional
settings, funding forms, economic conditions and potential starting, among other
characteristics.
This process was widely regarded as a certain re-centralization of central government power
(Merloni, 2016) with a growing concern in England at municipal and local government level
outside London with the absence of any clear political voice capable of speaking for their
interests. This was exacerbated by the intensification over the past decades of the significant
socio-economic disparities within and between UK regions (TCPA, 2006; Martin, 2015) which
are complement with an unequal asymmetrical transference of power between the four UK
countries (Merloni, 2016). Several organisations and thinkers drew attention to some concerns
regarding this process (see, for example, Bolton and Coupar, 2011; Bently, 2012). In particular,
the difficulty of setting up and developing LEPs is due to the lack of formal government
guidance, unsatisfactory business commitments, insufficient resources and capacity in
consortia, lack of long-term strategy in some of them (Pike et al., 2013).
The local government in England works under either a one-tier system - unitary authorities,
or a two-tier system - county and district councils192. Some parts of England also have a third
tier of local government which corresponds to towns and parish councils, responsible for
smaller local services. Many large towns and cities and some small counties operate as unitary
authorities as in the case of the City of York. They have only one-tier of local government and
are responsible for public services such as education, highways, transports, social care, housing,
libraries, leisure and recreation, environmental health, waste, strategic planning and local
taxation collection. In addition to the current 55 unitary authorities, there are still other types
that have only one tier of government: the 32 London Boroughs plus the City of London and
the Isles of Scilly.
The British cultural policy, founded on “arm’s length principle”, characterised by the noninterference and limited support of state and the rising intervention of civil society and private
191
192
These agencies were established in 1998 for development England's Government Office regions.
About local government structure see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-structureand-elections
172
actors (Gattinger and Saint-Pierre, 2008; Menger, 2010), shifted to a market-oriented and
“managerialist” perspective where culture acquired an increase instrumental role. In this
framework, the UK creative industries policy gained prominence that extended around the
world. Local authorities always had an essential role in supporting arts and crafts and in the
preservation of local heritage not only via culture budget but also indirectly through
regeneration agencies and other statutory and strategic agencies.
In general, other sources of funding are mainly the Department of Culture, Media and Sport;
the Arts Council of England; National Lottery; as well as support from various trusts,
foundations and private donations. Apart from these there is still funding available through the
EU initiatives for the promotion of culture. (House of Commons, 2011; ICAEW, 2015).
Looking to the case study, the City of York (NUTS 3) is positioned in the county of North
Yorkshire (NUTS 2), the largest of the four sub-regions of the Yorkshire and the Humber region
(NUTS 1)193 in England. (Figure 35.3). According to the urban-rural typology applied to EU
NUTS 3 regions is classified as an intermediate region (Eurostat, 2012; see Annexe C).
Figure 35.3 Location of the City of York in the Yorkshire and the Humber Region
(adapted from http://www.ons.gov.uk/)
193
Yorkshire and The Humber is one of twelve NUTS 1 areas in the UK. It is divided into the
following NUTS 2: East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire
and West Yorkshire. In turn, the North Yorkshire is subdivided into two NUTS 3 areas: York and
North Yorkshire CC.
173
It is situated a less than two hours from London, near the large urban conurbation of Leeds
and the important neighbours’ cities of Hull, Sheffield and Bradford. It covers an area of about
272 square kilometres of distinct small settlements and a wide rural landscape enclosed by the
Pennines, the North York Moors and the Yorkshire Wolds. From the spatial analysis of the city,
we distinguish the relatively flat topography and a compact and dense urban centre, delimited
by an external ring road built at the end of the twentieth century, in contrast to the surrounding
rural area (Figure 36.3).
As a unitary authority of 198,051
inhabitants
(2011
census)
is
subdivided into electoral wards and
combines powers and responsibilities
of a non-metropolitan county and
district council. After the 2005 general
election,
the
parliamentary
representation in North Yorkshire was
reviewed
Commission
by
for
the
Boundary
England,
which
recommended the re-drawing of the
City of York Constituency boundary
(Boundary Commission for England,
2007). In 2010, two constituencies
Figure 36.3 City of York Unitary Authority
(York City Council, 2010)
were created, fully integrated into the City of York: York Central and York Outer.
York Central encompasses the main activities of employment, shopping, leisure and
culture, while the encircling urban area is the first location for housing and related community
facilities plus a range of local services. In the surrounding suburbs were built the large
commercial spaces: Clifton Moor, Monks Cross, Naburn Designer Outlet and Northminster
Business Park. There are also a number of villages surrounding the York urban area which vary
in terms of their size and function.
Throughout the years, the City of York has been the scene of several remarkable moments
in the history of England which has contributed by acquiring an increasing degree of autonomy
of the central government. With a unique atmosphere accentuated by 2,000 years of urban
settlement, the city centre contains well-preserved archaeological sites, ancient monuments and
notable archives that reflect the history and culture of England and Europe. They show the
174
importance of the city over the centuries194, from its foundation in the Roman period (71 AD),
the Viking and Norman invasions (866 AD) and the prolific growth during the medieval period,
strengthened by the foundation of the Gothic York Minster in circa 1220.
The history of York as a city began in 1212 when King John granted the first city letter
confirming its rights. During the Middle Ages, York became an important cloth manufacturing
and trading centre. Between 1296 and 1336, in the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, it served
several times as the capital of the kingdom, receiving various organs of central government.
Given to its importance as a commercial centre, the rule of the town was in charge of a
mercantile oligarchy. Another symbol of the its influence was the granting of the title Lord
Mayor in the 1480s, a privilege only shared at that time by its counterparts in London.
In the late 15th and 16th centuries, the city had experienced an economic contraction, losing
its prominent position in the national hierarchy. York regained its economic dynamism given
its regional reputation and principally as a result of the development of railway-related
industries and confectionery manufacturing in the 19th century. Like many other British cities,
with the decline of its traditional industries at the end of the 20th century, the City adopted a
conservation strategy for its historical core while searching for new ways of development. They
have sought to become internationally competitive in research and development in the area of
science and technology industries.
As recognition of the value of their heritage and to support its preservation and study, York
was one of five historical centres of England to be designated as an Area of Archaeological
Importance195. Subsequently, several attractions were created as the National Railway Museum
(1975) complemented by an extensive year-round schedule of festivals as part of the attempt to
attract more tourists and boost the economy. Today, the ambience of medieval and narrow street
pattern of its inner centre is completed by a set of famous venues that represent the cultural
prominence along the times. From museum’s collections, archives, galleries and performance
hall to lively interpretation centres as well as top attractions as the York Minster, the Castle
Museum or the Clifford’s Tower. “It’s its history and well-preserved environment ambience
that makes its character”, emphasised various interviewers (Figure 37.3).
194
About York history http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/ or http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/vch/yorks/city-of-york/
195
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46/section/33
175
Figure 37.3 City of York aerial view
(author: Peter Czerwinski)
More recently, the city's profile was enhanced by the prestige of local HEI such as the
University of York and York St John University College which attracts 22,643 full time
students from all over the UK and overseas (Census 2011).
The economy of the city is predominantly based on services, generally in the public sector
with about 35% of total employment in public administration, health and education services.
Additionally, it has an extensive manufacturing, mining and energy industries sector, followed
by the tourism and financial activities (Centre for Cities, 2012). The tourism industry is already
responsible for 19,000 jobs for 6.9 million annual visitors and spending £564 million in the city
(Visit York, 2015). The high-quality environment and housing offer contribute to attracting an
affluent and highly skilled workforce, many of whom work in the wider Leeds City Region.
The recession has a strong impact on the economy of York, with jobs fallen almost 5%
between 2007 and 2010, in comparison with a reduction of less than 2% across the UK. Since
then, employment growth has been weaker relative to the national average and is still below
their peak before the recession. Expenditures on public administration consequently had to be
reduced, including health services and social work (Oxford Economics, 2015).
Given the current challenges, the City Hall and the key Local Partnerships have been
elaborating a new strategic vision for the development of the city as mentioned above.
176
Process analysis
Going back to the 1960s, a new approach to urban planning had emerged in the UK with
the concern of combining progress with the preservation of the environment and heritage.
Consequently, pilot studies were commissioned by the Government in four historic cities.
Among them was the City of York, which obtained special assistance in 1966, because of its
“character, beauty and historic interest”. Lord Esher, at that time president of the Royal Institute
of British Architects, prepared a Conservation Plan for York’s historic centre (Esher, 1968,
1969)196 based on the economic city centre recovery and repopulation, the elimination of noise
as well as the resolution of traffic congestion and land use conflicts. On the other hand, he
defended the need to preserve the historical character of the city and at the same time ensure
the construction of new buildings within the walled city according to high standards of
construction (Couch, 2016; see also Gold, 2004; York City Council, 2010, 2014).
York conservation policies then became a model for other English historic towns. At that
time, the local government was still not effectively concerned with tourism, but more with the
need for modernisation of local economy and attract inward investment. For some time, there
was a resistance to the development of tourism by the potential negative contributions to the
city life (Bahaire and Ellliott-White, 2000).
Local strategy and urban design began to express many of the characteristics of what
Edensor calls “enclavic tourist space”197 (Edensor, 1998, 2000, 2001). A strong regulated,
planned and circumscribed space emerged where the conversion of several streets in pedestrian
areas and the restoration of historical buildings, many of them for commercial uses, seeking to
change the inner centre’s landscape and attract new investments (Figure 38.3).
In the late 1980s, following the growth of the global tourism industry combined with the
need to revitalise the local economy, the role of tourism in the development of the city was reevaluated. Gradually, a “postmodern approach” was consolidated in which heritage is
196
The first comprehensive development plan for the City of York was commissioned in 1943 and
some components were adopted by 1945. Although its publication only occurred in 1948 entitle as
“York: a Plan for Progress and Preservation” (Fawcett, 2013).
197
This designation is used in opposition to a “heterogeneous tourist space”, “weakly classified, with
blurred boundaries, and is a multi-purpose space in which a wide range of activities and people coexist” (Edensor 2001: 64)
177
Figure 38.3 One of the pedestrian and commercial streets in the city centre (author’s photo).
transformed into a cultural commodity for individual and tourist experience (about this theme
see, e.g. Hewison, 1987; Urry, 1995; Meethan, 1996; Selby, 2004).
As explained by a local official involved in the heritage and planning, until the nineties:
Tourism, conservation and archaeology were perceived as problems that we had to
manage (…) that [could] stop development happening. [After that] I think there has
been a change in thinking (…) an increasing awareness that the basis of York’s economy
is the heritage (Member of a private cultural organisation).
Since then, many studies, plans and strategies were published highlighting the significance
of the historic environment for the city’s development. In 2004, Local Strategic Partnership
Without Walls that joint representatives of the public, business and voluntary sector launched
the first “Strategy for York Culture”, after an extensive public consultation198. Subsequently, a
cultural partnership named York@Large was created with the City Council to carry out one of
the main dimensions of the local strategy entitled “York, a city of culture” putting an emphasis
on the inclusive, lively and active profile. In this sense, a strong branding campaign around the
198
The consultation of residents and visitors occurred during the first ‘Festival of Ideas’ in 2003 and
resulted in the York’s first ever Vision and Community Strategy (for more information see
http://www.yorkwow.org.uk/)
178
theme “York, City of Festivals” was developed based on the organisation of a dynamic annual
calendar of events and performances. As explained by one of the representatives of this
landmark, York “is a relatively small city, but it has a huge influx of visitors” and typically only
“the larger cities have a sense of their own identity and have got some money to throw at it, to
express the culture that they’ve got” (Member of an association).
Like many other local authorities in England, the City Council adopted a charitable trust
model to transfer management of buildings and collections of the York Art Gallery, York Castle
Museum, Yorkshire Museum and Gardens and York St Mary’s. The York Museums Trust is
an independent body whose vision is “to play a major part in positioning York as a world-class
cultural centre” enhancing the collections, buildings and gardens delivered to it and “presenting
and interpreting them as a stimulus for learning, a provocation to curiosity and a source of
inspiration and enjoyment for all”199. More recently, in 2014 the City Council mutualised the
libraries and archive service. For a period of five years, an independent society Explore York
Libraries and Archives Mutual Ltd200 will run these services instead of the Council.
There are several examples of how the planning and regeneration processes incorporated
cultural organisations based in the city. One of the most obvious is the York Archaeological
Trust, whose “archaeological activity” as noted by one of its members “is driven more by the
planning and development process of the city”. As part of the urban regeneration plans, the
Trust carry out excavations in the areas to be intervened which contributed to a better
understanding of the city's past. These interventions are open to professionals, researchers, and
volunteers from around the world that wish to have an archaeological fieldwork experience. It
also seeks the awareness of the preservation of its historical legacy and to foster the community
sense of belonging as well as the involvement of citizens in the regeneration processes to a
more sustainable urban planning.
The redevelopment plans in the Coppergate area in the 1970s, turned into one of the noblest
shopping areas of the city, allowed to discover and investigate important vestiges which led to
the creation of the JORVIK Viking Center, to provides vivid and accurate experiences on the
life of the Viking village of York: Jorvik. To this main attraction that fascinates hundreds of
199
The council retains the role of custodian trustee and YMT is the management trustee. YMT is not
allowed to sell or dispose of any part of the collection or the estate without first getting the
permission of the council. See http://www.yorkmuseumstrust.org.uk/about-us/our-people/mission/
200
https://www.exploreyork.org.uk/client/en_GB/default. About the characteristics of public service
mutual see also https://www.gov.uk/guidance/start-a-public-service-mutual-the-process
179
thousands of visitors, they have joined the DIG: An Archaeological Adventure, with practical
educational experiences for schools and families. Lately, they inaugurated the Barley Hall
house and the Richard III & Henry VII Experiences to make known the medieval York.
More recently, the Trust collaborated with the joint venture company Hungate (York)
Regeneration Ltd, in one of the extensive urban regeneration schemes authorised by the City
Council to transform the old brownfield site of Hungate in a high density and mixed-use city
quarter (Figure 39.3).
Figure 39.3 View of the Hungate excavations.
(source: http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/case-studies/hungate/)
Before starting construction works, they supported archaeological excavations that had
revealed important discoveries and enabled the community to be involved in the project. As an
archaeologist said: “The community programme provided a unique experience to people
recognise the cultural heritage that’s around them” (Member of an association). With the same
purpose, and according to the national guidance that advises local authorities to stimulate
community participation it was organised, for instance, a Community Planning Weekend and a
Community Forum as well as the establishment of a Community Development Trust to ensure
the long-term sustainability of the project201. The council also supported the establishment of a
201
It was request to the architects of the John Thompson & Partners to implement their “Collaborative
Placemaking” process to provide spaces for debate with the design team, the City Council, the
developers and other stakeholders to prepare the project masterplan. To know more about these
approach, see http://www.jtp.co.uk/approachhttp://locality.org.uk/our-members/hungatecommunity-development-trust/
180
representative Community Consultation Group that delivers recommendations to the planning
of the area.
Also in 2006, Lady Mayor Janet Hopton set up the York World Heritage Steering Group
with members of local organisations to study the possibilities of integrating UNESCO World
Heritage List. As remembered by the representatives of the Steering Group:
We had to convince people of the benefits. Heritage is a large part of our economic wellbeing (…) The World Heritage status provided very good management tools to heritage
and ensured economic well-being. Moreover, the university and businesses connected
with it helped (...) to bring foreign investors (...) and people are moving here [because
of] the pleasant environment, quality of life, etc.
Therefore in 2009, given the consciousness of the importance of place-marketing for city
development, the Council supported the request to integrate the UK’s indicative list to World
Heritage Sites, but this proposal was unsuccessful.
After that, York launched a second bid that linked culture, innovation and technology,
which came to result, in 2015, in the award of the UNESCO City of Media Arts. As such, it
aims to mobilise culture and creativity to strengthen the local economy, increase levels of public
participation in culture, renew investment in the city’s human capital and academic institutions
and contribute to the quality of life202. This is part of a broader strategy of converting
information technologies and creative industries in a driver for urban development.
The “City of York Local Plan - Incorporating the 4th Set of Changes (Draft)” (2005),
although not formally adopted, is the statutory basis for development management decisions.
Between 2005 and 2011, in agreement with national legislation and in order to gradually replace
the existing plan, the city prepared a set of documents for the Local Development Framework
(2009). This framework focuses on making the City economically prosperous while preserving
and enhancing its unique historic character. It established different objectives arranged around
the following four themes: “York’s special historic and built environment”, “building confident,
creative and inclusive communities”, “a prosperous and thriving economy” and “a leading
environmentally friendly city” (Without Walls Partnership, 2011).
Nevertheless, the national legislative framework changed, and the city council approved its
withdrawal in 2012, giving instructions to produce a new Local Plan. As a result, evidence
202
Description on the UNESCO website: en.unesco.org/creative-cities/york
181
based documents were provided and subject to public consultation203. In April 2013, the new
plan “draft Local Plan 2013” was published and subject to a new consultation period204. After
reviewing the responses, the Council presented their “Local Plan - Publication (Draft)” (2014)
that should support the city’s vision and spatial strategy, already stipulated in previous
documents and plans:
York aspires to be a City whose special qualities and distinctiveness are recognised
worldwide. The Local Plan aims to deliver sustainable patterns and forms of
development to support this ambition and the delivery of the city’s economic,
environmental and social objectives. This will include ensuring that the city’s spaces
and archaeology can contribute to the economic and social welfare of the community
whilst conserving and enhancing its unique historic and natural environmental assets
(York City Council 2014: 17).
To these objectives, it also contributed the definition of the formal boundaries of York's
Green Belt which together with the countryside policies have prevented urban sprawl,
safeguarding individual settlements and York's historic character. This idea has a long history
in city planning vision dating back to the 1948 City Plan (Fawcett, 2013).
Therefore, in the design of York planning strategy, culture is a critical theme rooted in city’s
archaeologic and historical heritage, used in place-making and regeneration plans but also to
achieve economic prosperity and social development goals. Local development policies and
planning initiatives involved a range of stakeholders, including organisations particularly
involved in the heritage safeguard and city planning but also in cultural and educational
activities, as we will refer subsequently.
In addition, York has taken a new direction, moving from a railroad and confectionery
manufacturing town to becoming a national centre for financial and business services and a
recognised cluster of education, science and technology.
For this purpose, was created in 1998, in a partnership between the University of York and
City of York Council, the Science City York project205. In 2015, this initiative became part of
203
The involvement of the wider community in the planning process is part of the requirements
defined in National Planning Policy Framework. The Core Strategy of LDF (which will inform the
Local Plan) had already been the subject of an extensive public consultation. All documents could
be consulted in https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/20036/performance_and_policies
204
There were two periods of consultation, firstly on the “Preferred Options” proposals in June-July
2013 and then on the “Further Sites” recommendations in June-July 2014.
205
http://www.scy.co.uk/
182
Make It York, a development agency created by York City Council to support business
development, inward investment and networks in addition to the city's strategy in the field of
art and culture, particularly in the visitor economy, cultural and creative sector and the cultural
offer. Some of the supported companies benefited from the facilities of the York Science Park
Ltd on the university campus.
Many investments have also been made in media arts facilities and resources which make
the creative industries one of the fastest growing sectors in York with 250 companies that
employ 8,000 people. Moreover, according to the report “The Arts and Creative Industries
Sector of York and North Yorkshire” (BOP, 2011), York and its hinterland hosts 880 creative
business and employs 3,750 people, especially in visual and performing arts and music,
computer games, software and electronic publishing.
These options, as we will argue, became then central for urban development strategy in the
last decades. As pointed out by the Cabinet Leader206 these options do not deny the historical
legacy of the city, but they wish to emphasise the innovation contained in it. In other words, to
understand the “progressive innovation” as a starting point for discussion of what the city wants
to be.
As highlighted in the “York City Action Plan 2011-2015” as well as in “The Strategy for
York 2011-2025” (2011) prepared by the Without Walls Partnership:
A key challenge for York will be to rebalance the economy by reducing the city’s overdependence on public sector employment and to provide new opportunities for
expansion of the private sector. This will include increased employment in the science
and technology sectors, greater development of the financial and service sector and by
supporting expanding and major businesses in the city to thrive and develop (Without
Walls Partnership, 2011: 11).
Within the late years, the attraction of visitors and business became a drive for local
development simultaneous to research in specific fields, thus some local business and
politicians stressed the need to explore alternative offers of culture and entertainment to develop
a lively evening and night-time economy and, therefore, to improve the appeal on other tourist
profile.
206
At the date of the interviews, the Cabinet leader of the executive team was the Councillor James
Alexander, the England's youngest council leader (May 2011 - December 2014). The member for
leisure, culture and tourism was the Councillor Sonja Crisp.
183
Actors analysis
The City of York Council is a local authority with 47 members, eight of the councillors
constitute the executive team in charge of the local strategy and partnerships; planning;
transport; culture, leisure and tourism; social care and health; environment; housing; safety;
among other areas. The City Council set up diverse coalitions with local agents and groups in
the various policy areas as well as with neighbouring authorities principally with North
Yorkshire County207 and East Riding of Yorkshire Councils. For instance, the York City
Council worked with English Heritage and North Yorkshire County Council to refurbish
historic buildings through the York Town Scheme. Also, when the LEPs were created, York,
North Yorkshire and East Riding joined to promote economic growth across these regions.
These strategic partnerships allowed to receive central government funding through Local
Growth Fund and access to EU structural funds for local business. York companies have also
benefited from being engaged in the Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership208.
Over the last decade, successive city’s governments have placed increasing emphasis on
partnership working in urban development and culture. For example, to boost local economic,
culture and tourism development, the City of York Council has chosen a governance agreement
based on a public-private partnership to reorganise some departments into a single Destination
Management Organisation. Called “Make It York”209, is a company wholly owned by City of
York Council operates as a share company limited by guarantee, which means that all income
generated will be reinvested in the company for the benefit of the city and its surroundings. Its
importance is stressed by the chairwoman Jane Lady Gibson:
York plays a crucial role in the economic and cultural life of the North and can claim
strategically significant connections in the North, South, East and West, back in time
and into the future. But places cannot function effectively without true respect of a wide
range of perspectives. (…) One of our roles at Make It York is to understand the
complex economic and cultural life geography which make a city tick, and to use our
networks to problem solve and spot opportunities (Knowlson, 2015).
207
York is part of this ceremonial county for various functions but it is not under the administrative
control of North Yorkshire County.
208
Between 2010 and 2015, the LEP received from central government through the LEP received from
central government through the Growth Fund about £ 1.5 billion (National Audit Office, 2016a).
209
It was officially launched in in May 2015. See http://www.makeityork.com/
184
“Make it York” has created the “Visit York” brand for the coordination of the marketing
plans prepared in conjunction with the City Council, focusing especially on the search for
investments and support to companies, events, festivals and tourist attractions with the aim of
developing the tourist offer, in addition to monitoring the tourist activity in the city.
There are numerous organisations that contribute to this environment. Only in the field of
art, culture and heritage are registered 123 charitable organisations in York210. Some of them
have a special importance in supporting educational and community projects such as the
National Centre for Early Music211 that has a strong education programme and provides musicmaking opportunities for “young people living in challenging situations in the region” (Director
of the National Centre for Early Music). With the support of National Lottery funds and other
funding sources, they converted the medieval St. Margaret Church in a concert venue for jazz,
world, folk and early music performances as the famous York Early Music Festival. The
creation of this centre was decisive in the renewal of former run-down area of Walmgate,
strengthening the local sense of community at same that become an inescapable place of city
culture.
Like other cultural organisations and projects, the need to produce instrumental arguments
to obtain public funding based on the social and economic impact of their activities competes
with the intrinsic value of the arts and culture. In this way, particular forms and artistic projects
are favoured to the detriment of others.
We have to run this as a business, we have to find funds (…). But I don't see it as what
they call a creative industry (…) for me, it's about making music (...) what used to be
the direct competence of Government now is redirected through the Arts Council into
what they call ‘music hubs’, and the amount [of financing] is decreasing all the time.
On the other side, the Government acknowledges that if a child is encouraged to make
music in the early years, develops all sorts of other skills (Member of a private cultural
organisation).
In fact, as observed by some key informants cultural and creative workers “over the last
years had to became definitely more entrepreneurs and active in creating employment and
selling opportunities for their work”. And the development of the sector is interlinked with
210
A charitable is an entity centred on non-profit and philanthropic goals as well as social well-being
defined in the Charities Act 2011.
211
http://www.ncem.co.uk/?idno=175
185
tourism development “in York, they benefited from a large audience and tourist market (…).
Tourism became a purpose of arts and culture” (Member of an educational institution).
In addition, the digital revolution allowed them to engage and collaborate on various
networks, being able to choose to live outside the larger cities and even in rural areas of the
region “We can be here with our families where we want to work and live (...) and still do the
same job” (Member of an educational institution). They constitute a “vibrant sector with a
surprising number and a diversity of creative business (…) attracted by the city quality of life”
(Member of a non-departmental public organisation). But “it is also important that the
governments realise how small creative business work, how to create a flexibility approach”
(Artists/ cultural worker).
Thus, there is a dynamic community of artists and organisations involved in art, culture and
media projects engaged in the local community. For example, York Open Studios212 is a
community project that welcomes many of the city's best visual artists attracting many visitors.
The Arts Barge213 is another community project that involves the collective of performers in art
therapy. There is also a prestigious consortium of arts organisations and local authorities, the
York & North Yorkshire Creative Industries Network214 run by Chrysalis Arts, an arts
development agency dedicated to supporting creative practitioners and businesses across the
region.
As the City Council leader explains the lack of properties for small business growth in
creative arts, media and technology is a long-standing problem. Thus, they decided to invest in
the transformation of one of the most iconic historical buildings of the city, York's Guildhall
complex in a hub for these companies.
Given the importance of protecting, conserving and studying the city's cultural heritage, a
number of charities trusts215 have been set up, some of them as a central role in local planning.
A good example is the York Civic Trust216 whose history has always been connected to the
safeguard of York’s architectural and cultural heritage. It has taken a leading role in many of
the key initiatives of urban planning not only locally, supporting several private initiatives or
212
https://www.yorkopenstudios.co.uk/
http://theartsbargeproject.com/
214
http://www.creativenorthyorkshire.co.uk/
215
Charities trusts are a way to manage assets for public benefit purposes through trustees.
http://www.togmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Charity-Commission-Trustee-Information.pdf
216
The York Civic Trust holds the Fairfax House Museum http://yorkcivictrust.co.uk/
213
186
assisting local governments in their strategies, but also influencing planning and conservation
policies at a national level. Its action was crucial for the creation of the University of York.
Recently, the Civic presented a programme “for sustaining improvement in the quality of the
public realm in York’s historic core over the next few years” (York Civic Trust, 2015). The
members collaborated actively, for example through participation in Without Walls York’s
Local Strategic Partnership217 to develop a long-term, shared and sustainable vision for the city.
This partnership engages many local public, voluntary and business organisations who
produced the “Vision and Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 – 2025” (2008) and a “City
Action Plan 2011 – 2015” (2011) to exam the Strategy for York's aims and intentions.
Another important institutional actor in this field is the York Conservation Trust that
restored and rehabilitated many medieval properties in the city218. The management of private
assets while that ensures the cultural identity of the historic core is especially challenging in a
city like York. These institutions enjoy a privileged position and a certain independence in
relation to local authorities due to their financial autonomy.
The higher education providers are vital partners in the City’ strategy towards the
development of a regional innovation system and playing a significant role in the economic and
cultural life of the city. In particular, the University of York219 has played a very significant
function in the economic and cultural life of the city by engaging in partnerships with local
authorities and regional development agencies. Parallel to its educational and scientific
responsibility, it also has a special responsibility in promoting linkages between R&D research
and technology units supported by Science Park and the City of Science business developer
(Minguillo and Thelwall, 2013). With over 30 academic departments and research centres in
several areas, has developed solid competence in areas such as heritage conservation and
management, driven by unique features of the city, as well as in the application of digital
technology in media, games and music fields, among others. A good example of this is the
creation by the Theater, Film and Television Department in 2010 of Heslington Studios220, a
film and television production centre for student use but also to be hire to professionals and
commercial companies. Besides, it organises concerts, lectures and learning events open to the
community as the Festival of Ideas. This annual event is a partnership between the University
217
http://www.yorkwow.org.uk/about/
http://www.yorkconservationtrust.org/
219
https://www.york.ac.uk/
220
http://www.heslingtonstudios.com/
218
187
and several cultural, social and business organisations and includes world-class speakers’
conferences and talks, performances, workshops, exhibitions. It gives to large audiences and
target groups the chance to listen and discussed innovative ideas and challenging subjects.
The York St John University221, formerly a college founded in 1841, also offers research,
expertise and facilities in creative arts and media disciplines. On the campus of York St John
University was created in 2009 the Phoenix Center222, which offers accessible space for new
ventures exclusively in the creative and digital sector.
Like these HEI, many local trusts combine cultural and educational experiences alongside
commercial activities. The York Archaeological Trust as already mentioned is dedicated to
discovering and preserve the vast archaeological heritage of the city223. It provides specialised
consultancy, archaeological and research services in conjunction with community and
voluntary initiatives which are very popular among professionals and amateurs from all
worldwide. The Archaeological Trust owns the Jorvik Group224 that runs leading touristic
attractions and educational experiences of York. Throughout the year, the Trust organises a
program of over 160 events in York and Yorkshire, from festivals to lectures and dramatisations
that promote tourism development and bring significant economic benefits to many local
businesses and organisations and the maintenance of the Trust non-profit educational and
community activities.
Therefore, besides the presentation of the past in the archaeological excavations and finds
in situ, it provides a sensorial tourist experience of historical narratives and representations
which are commodified and celebrated in festivals in a postmodern approach. This process can
lead to a loss of authenticity and excessive economic dependence from tourism but can also be
used actively to develop local culture and strengthen a community's pride (MacLeod, 2006).
Some key findings
Like many other English cities, the challenges of post-industrial restructuring and
interurban competitiveness, as well as the transformation of the welfare state, led York to devise
221
https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/
http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/news---events/news---events-home/news/news-archive/news-archive2011/phoenix-centre-set-to-soar.aspx
223
http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/
224
http://www.thejorvikgroup.com/
222
188
a new development path. Abandoning an economy based on declining manufacturing
industries, they turned to service and knowledge-based economy.
For the preservation of the unique historical legacy, the city authority planned a “highly
regulated space” (Mordue, 2007), transforming the city centre into a commodity for individual
and tourist experience. As part of an extensive urban regeneration strategy, several
archaeological excavations were carried out which contributed not only to preservation but also
to a better understanding of the city's past - clearly observable today. It also promoted the
development of various commercial and educational activities, but also community projects
that strengthening the place's identity and sense of belonging.
Museums, libraries and archives, civic buildings, interpretation centres and other cultural
sites, with their valuable collections and services, along with the dynamisation of an extensive
and popular cultural agenda are fundamental axes for building the place-making and
development strategy.
The City of York has a variety of powerful and independent charitable and private
institutions supported by an urban elite with great influence not only in the preservation and
diffusion of local culture but also in urban planning and community development.
The HEIs are also leading actors not only regarding its educational function but also, adding
value to local economic, creating jobs and providing a highly skilled workforce and
infrastructures such the Science City York in partnership with other organisations helping to
develop technological and science-based and creative businesses. Besides, it promotes frequent
cultural and community engagement initiatives.
As in many others UK cities, public-private partnerships are part of planning and
development initiatives involving diverse local and non-local agents, often elite groups.
The major challenge in the design of urban policy is to achieve a balance between
conservation measures and economic growth policies in a historical and dense urban centre. As
noted by many informants and policy documents, the visitor economy has brought many
benefits in terms of job creation and economic growth, although at the same time it has brought
several problems for those who live and work there, such as crowded streets, traffic problems
and real estate pressures. Moreover, the sustainability of local strategy is namely affected by
the proximity to large labour markets and the excessive focus on tourism promotion and whitecollar employment as well as the lack of affordable office spaces and homes in the inner centre
which have pushed the lower income class to outside wards. It is also commonly discussed that
city seems not exhibit the necessary social diversity and nightlife offer for a certain degree of
cosmopolitanism to retain the so-called Richard Florida's creative class in comparison to the
189
large agglomerations nearby. In turn, the compact dimension of the inner city is emphasised, in
spatial terms, but also in the close network of existing relations and organisations.
With ongoing reductions in central government funding, other significant challenges are
currently posed to local authorities in delivering local public services and in supporting local
organisations and projects (LGA, 2014; National Audit Office, 2016b). To deal with these
constraints, new governance arrangements as the “public service mutual” organisation are being
explored by the City Council and many local actors.
Although the city's strategy focuses mainly on the central urban areas, we must not forget
the diversity of villages and rural areas, which contributes to the biodiversity and environmental
character of the district.
In general, local development policy seeks to maximise the potential of the city's cultural
profile to increase investment, employment and wealth, among other public policy objectives.
Many cultural agents denounce this instrumentalisation, claiming a greater recognition of the
intrinsic value of culture and the need for non-profit cultural organisations to have a distinct
treatment of the private cultural and creative industries. Though, from the conversations held,
there is a positive acceptance in the cultural sector to incorporate management methods and
profitable activities to ensure their sustainability and, at the same time, clarify their role using
a common language for politicians and citizens to justify public funds. Besides, local actors
also emphasised the need of improving the participation of the community in decision-making
to ensure that local needs are considered.
4. A comparative overlook
For a better understanding of the main characteristics of each case, a schematic table of
synthesis was elaborated according to the dimensions of the analysis model. Although as we
mentioned in the methodological criteria, the dimensions are interlinked, making difficult the
precise separation of the elements that integrate each one. This table intended to be a starting
point for the description and comparison of the main findings in the investigation, highlighting
the particularities and similarities between cases, in order to infer some key points that are
critical in the definition of local strategies and policies in SMUA (Table 7.3).
190
CONTEXT
Czech Republic
Pop.: 10 578 820 inh.
(2016)
G Unitary state,
parliamentary
democracy
Local government:
regions (kraje, singular
kraj); districts (Okresy;
singular okres) and
municipalities (obec)
Finland
Pop.: 5,502,590 inh.
(2016)
G Unitary state,
parliamentary republic
Local government:
municipalities
(kunta/kommun) and
regions
(maakunnat/landskap)
Portugal
United Kingdom
Pop: 10 341 330 inh. Pop: 54,786,300 inh.
(2015)
(2015)
G Unitary state,
G Unitary state,
parliamentary democracy parliamentary
Local government:
government under a
commune (freguesia), the constitutional monarchy
municipality (município) England
and the administrative
Pop: 54,786,300 inh.
region (região
(2015)
administrativa).
Local government:
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties.
- London region divided
into London boroughs
- Other regions divided
into county and district
councils (two-tier
system) or unitary
authorities (one-tier
system).
- Some areas have a
third-tier: towns and
parish councils
NUTS 1: Czech
Republic (CZ0)
NUTS 2:
Southwest/Jihozápad
(CZ03)
NUTS 3: South
Bohemian Region/
Jihočeský kraj (CZ031)
predominantly rural
region
LAU 1: Okres Český
Krumlov (District)
LAU 2: město Český
Krumlov (city)
B Český Krumlov
G District (46
municipalities)
`Area: 1615,56km2
Pop: 61,126 inh.
Density: 37.8 inh
pers./km2 (2016)
G City, municipality
with extended powers,
capital of the district
Governing body: Český
Krumlov Municipal
Authority
`Area: 2,217 km2
NUTS 1: Mainland
Finland (FI1)
NUTS 2: West Finland
(FI19)
NUTS 3: Central
Finland (FI193)
predominantly rural
region
LAU 1: Jyväskylä subregion (183 050 inh)
LAU 2: City of
Jyväskylä
NUTS 1: Continente
(PT1)
NUTS 2: Centro (PT16)
NUTS 3: Oeste / Western
(PT16B)
predominantly rural
region
LAU 1: Freguesia de
Óbidos (commune)
NUTS 1: Yorkshire and
The Humber (UKE)
NUTS 2: North
Yorkshire (UKE2)
NUTS 3: York (UKE21)
Intermediate region
LAU 1: York
LAU 2: York electoral
wards
B City of Jyväskylä
G Municipality and
City
Governing body:
Jyväskylä City Council
Administrative capital
of Central Finland
`Area: 1,466.5 km²
(2016)
Pop: 138 850 inh.
(2016)
Density: 118.58
pers./km2 (2016)
B Óbidos
G Municipality,
commune
Governing body: Óbidos
Municipality
(7 civil parishes)
` Area 141.55 km2
(2015)
Pop: 11,772 inh.
Density: 82.1 pers./km2
B City of York
G Unitary Authority
Governing body: City of
York Council
(22 wards)
`Area: 271.94 km2
Pop: 206,900 inh.
(2015)
Density: 687 pers./km2
191
Pop: 13,160 inh.
(2016)
Density: 634 pers./km2
“Město”: responsible for
local development on
issues like management
of municipal assets and
the local budget, social
work, public order and
the municipal police,
water supply, local
public services, town
and municipal cultural
institutions, etc.
Inner centre: 27,750
inh.
Municipality: selfgoverning
administrative unit
responsible for the
provision of social and
healthcare services,
education, cultural
services and technical
infrastructure.
- Municipal
- Major centre in
administrative role
regional system
- One of the smallest
- One of the fastest
districts of South
growing cities in
Bohemia region and
Finland
Czech Republic
- 271 km northeast of
- 220 km from Prague Helsinki
- Adjacent to Austria, 70 - Good accessibility
including a regional
km of Linz
- Small settlements in a airport
- Compact city centre
low density and rural
district contrast with the with natural
cosmopolitan
surroundings within
atmosphere and
walking distance: lakes
compactness of the main are a quarter of the area,
urban centre
surrounded by forests,
- A diverse biosphere
hills etc.
and natural protected
- Alvar Aalto’s
areas
architectural heritage
- Rich history linked
- Industrial heritage
with political events and - Key economic sector:
education and social
aristocratic families
- Historically important services but metal and
wood industries have a
craft and trade centre
- Long standing cultural strong foundation
centre for artists, writers, - Special expertise in
paper making, energy,
and musicians
environmental,
- Main sectors of the
education and
economy: retail and
service industries linked information
technologies.
to tourism
Alongside, the rising
- One of the most
popular tourist
new sectors concerning
Municipality: main
competences include
local roads and public
transport, primary
education, culture and
heritage, leisure and
sport, healthcare and
social welfare (at
municipal level),
housing, environment,
water supply and waste,
local economic
development, spatial
planning and urban
development, municipal
police and civil
protection, etc.
Unitary authority:
combine the powers and
functions that are
normally delivered
separately by the
councils of nonmetropolitan counties
and non-metropolitan
districts. E.g. housing,
waste management,
waste collection, council
tax collection,
education, libraries,
social services,
transport, planning,
consumer protection,
licensing, cemeteries
and crematoria.
- Municipal
- Regional centre under
administrative role
the commuter area of
- Good accessibility:
major cities
about 80 km north and - Good accessibility: key
less than one hour
interchange railway
station
driving of Lisbon; and
245km from Oporto; and - 34 km from Leeds
in the route to the pilgrim - Near Manchester,
Newcastle and
centre of Fátima
- A walled historical and Leeds/Bradford airports
classified town in a rural - Equidistant from
London and Edinburgh.
area
- Diverse
- Relatively flat,
geomorphological
compact and walkable
environment: natural
urban historic centre
landscape dotted by
surround by a
several small rural
countryside and small
settlements, a lagoon
settlements
ecosystem, beaches, etc. - Archaeological and
- Key economic sectors: historical heritage
agriculture, tourism and - Key economic sector:
related services.
predominantly public
- Historical, religious and administration, health
cultural heritage linked and education, and
tourism industry
to nobility
- Appealing destination services
- Becoming a national
for cultural elites
centre for financial and
- Popular tourist
business services and a
destination
recognised cluster of
education, science and
technology
192
destination in Czech
Republic
wellness and
nanotechnology
- A young population of
45 000 students and a
highly skilled
population
- Popular tourist
destination
- More than 20,000
national and
international students
and a highly skilled
population
PROCESS
- The inclusion of
historic core and the
castle complex on the
UNESCO World
Heritage List
- Urban planning
shaped by the
geography, the long
standing urban pattern
and the preservation
restrictions of the
historical buildings in
the inner centre as well
as the natural
preserved areas
- Important natural
resources
- Local development
rooted on cultural,
leisure and nature
tourism
- The UNESCO brand
for marketing
communication
- Very attractive for
investors, real estate
developers and
visitors, which
promoted
gentrification
processes
- Development of
products, activities and
skills related to
tourism
- Local vision rooted
in its unique historical
and cultural heritage
allied to quality of the
cultural offer the
promotion of the city's
image, tourism,
economy and external
relations.
- Decline of traditional
industrial sectors led
to the investment in
high-quality
educational institutes
and ICT research
- Construction of fairs
and conferences as
well as business
infrastructures.
- Tourism
development linked to
wellness and
wellbeing values
- International
innovation centre on
sauna culture - highquality health
providers
- Transdisciplinary
approaches to develop
innovative solutions
- Focus on highly
skilled human
resources
- Strategic brands:
a) Athens od Finland
b) Human Technology
City
c) Culture and
Wellness
- Main urban
development projects:
Regeneration of
Lutakko and Kangas
area; Jyväskylä City
Center Development
3.0. project
- City Council strategy
main goals: active,
healthy and happy
citizens, wise use of
resources, and a bold
business policy.
- Classification and
recovery of Óbidos'
castle and walled urban
centre support the
development of
tourism
- Specialisation in
thematic events in
urban revitalisation
strategy associated to
the creation of
recognisable image at
nationally and
internationally
- Reformulation
territorial model with
the revision of the
Municipal Plan
- Residential and
nature tourism in
Óbidos Lagoon area
- Strategic brand:
Creative Óbidos culture, economy and
innovation
- Management model
using a municipal
company
- Reformulation of the
educational model and
infrastructures
- Creation of “creative
ecosystem”: facilities
to creative firms;
support cultural and
creative consumption;
attract talents
- Creation of a
Network of
Investigation,
Innovation and
Knowledge to
UNESCO World
Heritage application
- Urban planning and
local development
rooted in historical
core conservation
strategy
- Archaeological and
heritage protection and
research linked to
economic and
community
development aims
- Focus on visitor
economy. Need to
diversify visitors
profile
- Research and
development in
science and
technology industries
rooted in HEIs led to
developed Science
City York strategy
(bioscience, creative
industries and IT &
digital field)
- Strategic brands:
“York, a city of
culture”, “York, City
of Festivals”
- UNESCO bid to
World Heritage Sites
- UNESCO City of
Media Arts
- “Make It York” company wholly
owned by City of York
Council to deliver
economic
development, tourism,
city centre and culture
activities for the city.
It created “Visit York”
brand for coordination
193
- Need to diversify the
visitor profile
- Significant role of
local non-profit
organisations in
community
development
Cultural policy
- Main focus on the
preservation of
cultural monuments
and buildings as well
as cultural and sports
events
- Fundamental role of
the inscription of
Historic Centre of
Český Krumlov in
UNESCO World
Heritage Site List
- High attending
festivals, concerts and
theatre performances
using the city and the
castle as scenery
- Heritage approach:
material and
immaterial memory of
the past
- Cultural initiatives
support by the
Municipality, the
Region of South
Bohemia and the
Ministry of Culture as
well as European
programmes,
UNESCO Heritage
Programme, and EEA
and Norwegian Grants
-Long tradition in
theatre, music and
painting
- Development of
artistic residencies,
scholarships and study
trips
- Promotion of several
traditional cultural
institutions (e.g.
museums, theatres,
etc.)
- Importance of arts
and music education
Founded values of the
strategy:
responsibility, trust,
creativity, openness
values
- Strong associative
spirit and human
capital
Cultural policy
- Culture’s role in
addressing social
problems and citizens’
wellbeing
- Public funding:
major role in
supporting art and
cultural activities and
institutions, heritage
safeguard and
educational and social
support initiatives for
the elders and young
people
- Central state and
municipalities direct
budget funding based
on expenditure but
also can transfer
grants/subsidies
- City’s Cultural
Services: creates
preconditions for artist
and cultural
production and
consumption, by
providing cultural
offerings and events
as well as by
supporting cultural
activity
- Fostering of music
and art education
- Facilities: orchestras
and choirs and theatre
companies; libraries;
sports and cultural
events (theatre, music
festivals, rally, sky,
etc.)
- Recognised art
branches: crafts,
printmaking,
photography as well
music and architecture
- Provision of creative
infrastructures and a
technological park
- Financial benefits to
attract companies
- Need to diversify
visitors profile
city’s marketing and
improve tourism
Cultural policy
- Important historical
and religious heritage
and the recovery of
traditions along with
new events and
products
- Creation and
management of
cultural infrastructures
such the network of
museums and Galleries
and an extensive and
high-attending cultural
agenda
- Strengthen of local
identity and
community
engagement through
local associations and
educational approach
- Support of the
development of
creative skills and
services
- Creation of a
Network of
Investigation,
Innovation and
Knowledge to
UNESCO World
Heritage application
- Rehabilitation of
abandoned buildings in
the town for the
provision of creative
infrastructures to live
and work.
- Creation of Óbidos
Literary Town that
include several
different bookshops
and events that support
the nomination to the
UNESCO Creative
City of Literature
Cultural policy
- Focus on
archaeological
exploration, heritage
conservation and
support of cultural
institutions
- Well-preserved
layers of history in the
walled and medieval
centre
- Culture as
commodity and a drive
of local economy and
community
development
- Cultural and creative
industries support
especially in visual
and performing arts
and music, computer
games, software and
electronic publishing.
- Strong and popular
cultural agenda
- Museums, archives,
galleries and
performance hall to
lively interpretation
centres as well as top
heritage attractions
- Preservation of
railway history
- Cultural partnership:
network of local
institutions for cultural
development with
special role of HEIs
and major cultural
institutions
- Essential role of the
Council in supporting
arts and cultural
initiatives. Other
funding sources:
DCMS; Arts Council;
National Lottery; as
194
- Participation of local
stakeholders and
external experts in
urban planning
- Collaboration
between municipal
authorities and cultural
institutions to improve
cultural offer
- The City's own
business company,
ČKDevelopment
Fund, manage the
regeneration process
and boost tourism
through its Destination
Management
department
ACTORS
- Ministry of Culture administrative
authority for arts,
cultural and
educational activities,
cultural monuments,
media and other
matters. It supports
directly cultural the
development and
preservation of
heritage
- National Heritage
Institute and its
Heritage Fund plays a
central role in the
conservation and
revitalization of
cultural and natural
heritage
- Ministry of Regional
Development and
South-Bohemian
Regional Authority:
culture as a priority for
development, specially
- Artists support
infrastructures
(workspaces,
residences)
- New governance
strategies to improve
collaboration and
participation in
regeneration
programmes
- Collaboration
between regional and
local authorities
- Cooperation between
researcher centres,
businesses and public
actors
- Political
commitment on
education and
innovation
- Special role of some
key political and
educational leaders
- Ministry of
Education and Culture
is responsible for
legislation, central
government financing
and strategic steering
and for providing
prerequisites for
artistic and cultural
activities.
- City of Jyväskylä
Council and its
Cultural Services Unit
and Planning
Department
-Publicly-owned
enterprises: Jyväskylä
Regional
Development
Company JYKES Ltd
and Jyväskylä
Innovation Ltd
- Regional Council
Central Finland
- Creative thinkers
from different fields
and organisations
- Municipality is the
main promoter.
well as trusts,
foundations and
private donations.
- Municipal companies
to implement the city
strategy
- Integration of
national and
international
collaborative networks
- Collaboration with
national and
international HEIs
- Proximity to the
political executive
- Political commitment
with culture and
creative strategy
- Disruptive thinking
and qualifications of
the executive political
team
- The City Council set
up coalitions and
partnerships in
different fields with
local agents and
neighbouring
authorities
- Public-private
partnerships namely in
regeneration projects
- Charitable trust
model to manage
buildings and
collections of
museums and galleries
- Mutualisation of the
libraries and archive
service.
- Portuguese Ministry
of Culture, namely
through the regional
departments of Culture
is responsible for
develop and implement
cultural policy,
including the
protection and
valuation of the
cultural heritage, the
support to the artistic
creation and
production
- Óbidos Municipality
- Municipal companies
- Network of Museums
and Galleries
- Education institutions
- OBITEC (Óbidos
Association for
Science and
Technology)
- Agents of change: a
new approach to
development
- Central government
deliver cultural policy
through the arm's
length agencies.
- DCMS is the
ministerial department
for protect and
promote cultural and
artistic heritage and
foster innovation. It
supports by 43
agencies and public
bodies.
- City of York Council
- Leading HEIs
- Make It York company limited by
guarantee
- Several charitable
organisations in art,
culture and heritage
field
- Dynamic community
of artists
- Charities trusts central role in local
planning and in
195
in tourism and foreign
cooperation relations
- ČK State Castle and
Chateau administration
(under the Regional
Heritage
Administration)
- Crucial role of
Municipality and its
subsidiary company
- Several NGOs in
cultural, artistic and
educational field
- HEIs
- Jyväskylä
Educational
Consortium: highquality general and
vocational upper
secondary education
and training
- Numerous voluntary
associations and sports
clubs, amateur’s
companies of theatre,
etc.
- Regional
Coordination and
Development
Commissions manage
EU structural funds
and support local
development projects
- Diverse associations:
from business, heritage
safeguard to numerous
sport, cultural and
recreational groups.
- Cultural elite vs rural
community
safeguard of York’s
architectural and
cultural heritage
- Local Enterprise
Partnership with
adjacent regions
Table 7.3 Main characteristics of the four cases according the key three dimensions of analysis
Leaving the considerations most critical to the conclusions, the four cases that we described
here, from the outset, present evident differences due to the specific historical, socioeconomic
and political circumstances of each one as well as of the different dimensions and positions in
the respective urban networks and hierarchies. However, they also present some similarities in
development processes, in the challenges that affect them and in the actions of their
governments.
The development processes of the cities of Jyväskylä and York reflect their industrial past
and historical influence in the regional context and, consequently, their capacity to shift to a
service-based economy and to foster a culture of innovation based on internationally recognised
educational institutions. In line with the national policy guidelines of both countries, the
investment in knowledge and ICT activities has promoted the availability of highly qualified
human resources and jobs. Their size and functional importance in the regional framework
provides a larger relational structure and diversified resources and infrastructures to develop
new solutions. However, these regional centres seek to improve their position in the urban
hierarchy and struggle with the trend towards centralisation and attractiveness of large
agglomerations.
Smaller cities such as Óbidos and Český Krumlov have greater difficulties in achieving
economies of scale and access, showing a greater dependence on neighbouring cities, especially
concerning the provision of jobs and services. These municipalities have benefited throughout
their history from their geographical location, the protection of cultural and political elites and
the rich heritage inherited by them, as well as from the existence of a set of invaluable natural
resources. After a period of abandonment, the rehabilitation process allowed the construction
of a strong identity image and the attraction of visitors and investments related to tourism. The
196
action of the municipalities went through the recreation of traditions and the creation of events
and cultural infrastructures destined to the diversification of the profile of its visitors and to
reduce the seasonality. In particular, the Municipality of Óbidos, under a long and strong
political leadership and disruptive thinking, influenced by international trends and the
participation of a set of cooperation networks, bet on the development of a creative ecosystem
that interconnects culture, innovation and economy. This approach is upheld by the
reconfiguration of its educational system and the establishment of a set of infrastructures and
measures of support for entrepreneurship and attraction of creative talents. Without forgetting
its rural matrix, it implemented specific social and environmental policies as well as the
promotion of local products.
In turn, in Český Krumlov, recognition of the initial rehabilitation and conservation works
consonant with the value of the complex and the historical core of the castle led to its
nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List. This brought a set of resources and a platform
for the valorisation of its original character besides a set of restrictive conservation measures
framed by a development plan. The transformation of the historical centres of Český Krumlov
and Óbidos into places of tourist consumption, together with the restrictive patterns of
construction and conservation, led to their abandonment by a large part of their inhabitants.
However, the existing natural resources in the vicinity provided the widening of the tourist
profile and the promotion of healthier and rural lifestyles.
Similarly, the City of York had in the distinctions received and subsequent urban
regeneration process the impulse to use its archaeological heritage not only for purposes of
preservation and specialised study but also for the creation of a unique and distinctive image
and identity supported by an extensive network of cultural partners. The walkable centre of the
city core with several cultural sights by an open countryside attracts numerous visitors.
The regeneration of these three recognised historical centres was enhanced by a policy of
events, which encompasses the re-creation of imaginaries based on local culture, history and
traditions, and which contributed to boost tourism and stimulate the local economy. Also, the
valorisation of the distinct cultural qualities in each municipality strengthened the identity and
sense of belonging of their communities. In turn, regeneration processes also move residents
from the historic centres to the peripheries, contributing to the replacement of the residences by
services.
Contrary to what happens in other cities with classified historical centres, which are obliged
to preserve them as testimonies of particular historical epochs, regeneration projects in
Jyväskylä have involved the conversion of industrial heritage into other uses where cultural and
197
community projects are incorporated. As other cases studies, local cultural policy engages the
creation of lived environment through cultural events and aims to achieve other policy goals,
however, here as in the other Nordic cities, have a strong tie with the resolution of social
problems and the improvement of citizens’ health and well-being. The tourism activities and
place-making strategies are, therefore, related to the promotion of local cultural values such as
wellbeing, education or nature enjoyment and healthier lifestyles.
The processes of transferring responsibilities from the central state to lower levels have
been a common trend in most European countries. All municipalities highlighted the proactive
role of local policymakers and some critical local partners in the development of new
approaches. All local governments have explored new governance models to manage defined
development priorities ranging from the creation of municipal enterprises and development
agencies to tourism departments with different legal configurations depending on the law of the
respective countries. The participation in collaborative networks, not only locally but also
remotely through EU programs, was also one of the strategies of local actors, both public and
private. This allowed them not only to obtain funding but also to share knowledge, promote the
cities' recognition, as well as the implementation of collaborative projects with different
partners.
In the city of York, the partnerships and coalitions between the City Council and other
private and charitable organisations as well as with other neighbouring local authorities are
quite common in the pursuit of the definition of the local development strategy. Less frequent
are public-private partnerships in Cesky Krumlov and Óbidos, according to the political culture
of their respective countries, where local authorities play a crucial role in defining and
sustaining urban development practices and cultural initiatives. Regional authorities are
fundamentally intermediaries in accessing EU strategic funds.
In Jyväskylä, regional authorities play a crucial role in defining and implementing
development policies as well as cooperation with other regional authors and the City Council.
The City has several responsibilities in the provision of public services and the implementation
of local development plans, but with the aid of Regional Council and local development agency,
they are looking to improve further forms of public-private partnership, particularly, in urban
regeneration projects. However, until recently, they are mostly realised without private
financing and partly with the support of EU structural programmes. In turn, collaborative work
between organisations of different sectors is highly cultivated, existing several transdisciplinary
projects especially developed by HEIs.
198
In the four cases, it is widely recognised the importance of educational actors in the
construction of a new development path. If in Jyväskylä and York this seems evident not only
by the relevance of its research centres but also by the existence of other cultural actors with a
relevant role in community education and development. Also in the other municipalities, the
institutions with educational functions are leading partners in the economic, social and cultural
agenda of cities. In the case of the municipality of Óbidos, the reform of the educational model
not only support its creative strategy but also project it towards the future. In Český Krumlov,
there is a long tradition in artistic and musical education that contributes to the distinctive
features of the place, and besides that, the most cultural institutions promote diverse learning
experiences. In all cases, there are numerous civic associations dispersed throughout the
territory and representative of the different communities that make it actively involved in its
development and the preservation of its cultural traditions and identity.
The support for entrepreneurship, for example through the creation of incubation spaces,
was undoubtedly a commitment not only from the City Council of Jyväskylä and York but also
to Óbidos. The Óbidos’ municipality has long sought to attract creative talent and companies,
recovering buildings for the installation of a diversity of spaces that ranges from FabLabs to
creative residences. Here, the flexibility and small scale of the projects, and the incorporation
of motivational elements are fundamental for its sustainability. More recently, the creative
agenda, principally linked to digital and media technologies, has become one of the
cornerstones of York city's policy, benefiting from universities' infrastructures and the UK
creative economy policy. After failing to be included on the UNESCO World Heritage List
mainly due to changing priorities on this institution agenda, both cities have become part of the
Creative Cities network of UNESCO. In turn, the Jyväskylä region's business policy is more
focused on knowledge-intensive companies.
Looking at the foundations often used by different actors about culture in the development
processes in different SMUA, in Óbidos, culture and heritage were approached by local
government from a modern perspective that introduces creative thinking into policy
formulation. The (re) invention and appropriation of local traditions and activities driven by the
dynamisation of thematic events, the review of educational and environmental programs, the
promotion of creative industries led to the development of new products and tailor-made
businesses and the attraction of people not only in traditional sectors but also in cultural and
creative field. The bureaucratic model of national politics, low institutional flexibility and low
civic participation are some of the obstacles that hamper the implementation of development
policies. Similarly, the political culture in small post-socialist communities such as Český
199
Krumlov, the discursive practices still reflect the control of a very centralised and bureaucratic
government and an approach to culture based mainly on the valorisation of high culture and
expressions of collective identity and the bet on construction and maintenance of traditional
cultural institutions. In both the instrumentalisation of culture and the use of cultural resources
for the development mainly of the tourism industry is justified as a means for the revitalisation
of the heritage and the local economy. It is also viewed as an instrument to enhance local
identity and encourage people’s inclusion.
In the case of the City of York, cultural activities and resources have been used to increase
the visitor's economy and are considered an engine of economic growth in the context of the
British neoliberal policy agenda. The decrease in budgetary funds for culture has led local
organisations often use instrumental arguments to justify the value of culture for policy
appraisal and resource allocation. In addition, they have developed new income streams
combining commercial and philanthropic activities and participate in urban development plans,
integrating the local strategy of economic growth to attract visitors, students and companies.
In the same vein, in Jyväskylä the debate about the intrinsic value and instrumental use of
culture is usual among the local actors, but is not so much interleaved with public funds
allocation and the requisite of evidences but further related to with the autonomy of arts and
culture. Both communities have a stronger culture of civic intervention in the destinies of the
city that in smaller ones. In Jyväskylä, cultural policy is based mostly on the values of individual
and collective well-being and is used to a large extent by political actors for the conduct of
social policies
To summarise, the municipalities selected to this analysis have developed a diversity of
cultural interventions (Table 8.3) which depends largely on the targets that they what to achieve,
the actors' involvement and resources available. The integration and balance between economic
rationales and community development approaches, the construction and preservation of
distinct and authentic culture can determine the sustainability and the consensus around local
strategies. Thus, as has been advocated by the people involved in this area in recent years, a
third policy approach has been incorporated in this table, reflecting a paradigm shift in
development. This approach has as its main objective the sustainability, understood holistically,
that seeks to rescue and protect local identities, lifestyles and knowledge, and, finally, that
promote cultural changes and equitable results.
200
APPROACH
Rationales
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
To create wealth and jobs
To increase resilience and competitiveness
To diversify local economy
Objectives
Support entrepreneurship and cultural production
Improve visitor economy
Stimulate inward investment
Encourage cultural consumption
Promote a positive place image
Retain graduates and skilled workers
Foster knowledge transfer and spill-over effects
Key
Infrastructures for cultural/creative business
Interventions Fiscal Incentives and start-ups support programmes
Place branding and tourism services
Cultural/creative clusters development
Events and festivals agenda
Creation/Support arts and cultural venues
Fairs and congresses facilities
Urban regeneration projects
Public services privatisation or public-private partnerships
Retail and leisure areas
Leading
Public authorities
Actors
Development agencies
Business companies
Property owners and investors
Political experts
Cultural managers
Urban planners
APPROACH
Rationales
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To create more equitable, healthy and diverse communities
To promote high quality of life and wellbeing
Objectives
Improve access to culture and art education
Develop culture-led regeneration projects
Reduce social risks
Improve social cohesion of communities and neighbourhoods
Stimulate collective identity and sense of belonging
Promote social innovation
Encourage community trust and joint action
Promote cultural diversity and social inclusion
Key
Funding and support of cultural and social institutions
Interventions Artists grants and residences
Social innovation initiatives and research
201
Leading
Actors
Events-based on local traditions
Multicultural and intercultural events
Forums and public consultation meetings
Voluntary and civic programmes
Neighbourhood renewal programs
Community places
Community-based educational and cultural programmes
Public authorities
Cultural institutions
Civic associations
Artist community
Education institutions
APPROACH
Rationales
CULTURAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
To enrich people lives and society
To protect cultural and natural diversity
To preserve identity values
To promote cultural change and equitable outcomes
Objectives
Improve universal access to subjective and aesthetic experience
Foster inherent cultural benefits to enhance individual and collective lives
Disseminate cultural and creative spill-over effects to the wider society
Encourage innovative and creative practices
Promote human rights and cultural diversity agenda
Protect natural environment and people enjoyment of natural resources
Key
Natural and cultural heritage safeguard programs
Interventions Support of cultural and artistic institutions and facilities
Protection programmes for artist and cultural workers
Arts and creative programmes for sustainability
Public art and spaces sponsorship
Artists grants and residences
Creative curriculum implementation
Trans-sectorial and interdisciplinary collaborative projects
Events for civic and community participation
Community-based sustainability projects
Leading
Cultural institutions
Actors
Civic associations
Artist community
Education institutions
Public authorities
Table 8.3 Culture development approaches in SMUA
202
CONCLUSION
“We are keenly aware that there can be no “one size fits all” development model, and
that to deliver better results, projects must reflect the needs, aspirations, priorities and
cultures of their beneficiaries” (Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations,
on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the UNESCO Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity, New York, 2 November 2011).
In an increasingly urban world, significant changes in socio-economic, political, cultural
and environmental conditions, linked mainly to the progress of digital technologies; the
intensification of global flows of people, information, capital and goods; have transformed the
way we see the world.
In the course of these processes, governments in Europe were confronted with the decline
of traditional industries and the challenge of transition to a service-based economy as well as
the intensification of interdependence processes and higher global competitiveness.
Furthermore, they have been facing the requirements of sociodemographic changes,
inequalities in living conditions, the increasingly precarious employment; environmental
degradation; among many other problems. Besides, local authorities have been dealing with
growing responsibility in services delivery and the demand to improve public accountability.
Moreover, markedly since the 2008 crisis, they were affected by a substantial reduction in tax
revenues, higher social assistance expenditure, a significant increase in budget deficits and,
subsequently, a reduction in public investment.
In response to these requests, numerous strategies and policies have been performed by
regions, cities and towns, supported by national and European government programs, which
exploit different aspects of culture for different policy objectives, including the promotion of
sustainable urban development.
However, the full integration of culture in the context of development policy presents many
difficulties due to conceptual and operational reasons (Duxbury et al., 2016). As reviewed in
the first chapter, the primary challenge stems from the complexity of the “culture” or
“development” notions itself and the associated political processes. Further, development is
culturally-sensitive to the diversity of urban contexts and is contingent on local socio-political
conditions. It reveals actors’ ideas, values and interests and the associated interactive processes
of policy formulation and legitimation. Moreover, culture is increasingly intricate in everyday
socio-economic practices and the transformation of politics and urban space (representational
203
and material). On the other hand, economics determines and appropriates culture and politics
and, likewise, the city and towns.
In the field of development, culture has always been considered critical in development
processes. However, a more holistic perspective has been discussed in international forums,
considering that culture is fundamental to the pursuit of sustainable development objectives. In
particular, as an economic and social resource and sector; by its mediating or facilitating role
in the delicate balance between the economic, social and environmental development goals;
and also for its transformative capacity, given that development involves the transformation of
norms, values and behaviours (as discussed in Joost Dessein et al., 2015). However, there is
still a long way to go for all these facets to be integrated into international development policies
and practices.
Despite the inherent complexity and density of this discussion, this dissertation tries to offer
a critical contribution to a better understanding of the relationship between culture and urban
development. In this sense, and informed by the research literature, the following main
questions were formulated:
- What are the values and roles attributed to culture in urban planning strategies and
development policies, particularly, in European SMUA located in intermediate and rural
regions?
- How is culture involved in policy discourses and practices in different socioeconomic and
political contexts?
These questions seek not to limit too much the research so that new understandings could
emerge on the subject. Thus, the initial focus, for operational reasons, was the set of cultural
activities and practices that involve a certain level of aesthetic and semiotic attributes, along
with the public decisions related to them. However, this starting point should be associated to
a broader reflection on culture as the set of lifestyles, value systems, traditions and beliefs of
the communities.
This study examined particularly the challenges and potentialities of small and mediumsized urban areas located outside the capitals and major metropolitan areas (abbreviated to
SMUA). This interest remains relevant given the insufficient discussion on the dynamics that
are occurring in these urban centres and the growing awareness of their unique role in the
pursuit of a more sustainable and cohesive European territorial development.
For this, an analytical model was developed to collect, study and describe more coherently
the biography of the selected urban centres and to consider the processes and the multiplicity
of actors in the different scales of political action. As Paul L. Knox suggested: “We need
204
detailed biographies of cities that set local change in global context... to examine the
significance of particular cities as sites for the construction of new cultural identities and
political discourses and new processes of political and cultural transformation” (Knox, 1996:
117).
The model developed for the empirical analysis underlines the complexity of the object of
study and reinforces the need for a transdisciplinary and relational approach, in the long term
and at multiple scales of observation. For example, it is often in the subtle interdependencies of
the analysed dimensions and in informal and off-the-record conversations that the elements that
have helped us reveal what is involved and what are the factors that determine or condition the
success of the initiatives have emerged.
The dense narratives constructed in each case, presented here only in summary form,
resulted from the detailed observation of the contexts during study visits in different periods of
time; long hours of informal conversations and in-depth interviews with a diversity of key
informants (ranging from managers of public and private organisations, government officials
to cultural workers and ordinary residents). They have also been formed over the last few years
based on participation and discussion in numerous conferences and meetings in various
projects; the attendance of local cultural events as well as the analysis of a wide range of
documents of different kinds.
With the research questions and territorial focus in mind, and based on the results of the
research, we can undoubtedly affirm that culture has acquired a central role in the development
policies and strategies described in these SMUA. The planning process is sensitive to the
structural preconditions of each empirical case and the transforming capacity of actors in the
light of the available resources. However, their local agenda was undoubtedly influenced by the
circulation of ideas and models disseminated by elites and political initiatives.
In general, the political discourses that guided local action included the creation of an
“urban imaginary” capable of translating a strategic vision adopted, which is materialised in
political measures and interventions. This imaginary supports a set of initiatives that exploit
tangible and intangible local assets in order to promote a distinctive image of places in the
context of increasing interurban and global competition. The specific symbolic, socio-cultural,
relational and territorial elements of the place are activated in the local development strategies
to attract new clients, investors or tourists, but also to strengthen the sense of belonging, identity
and trust of their communities and stakeholders.
Local governments in the case studies have taken a proactive role as planners and
developers, exploiting structural opportunities and multiple connections to capitalise on the
205
culture for development purposes. In the light of existing legal and institutional frameworks,
they have long begun trying to respond to local demands and market pressures, placing culture
at the centre of their agenda. Like many other European local authorities, they have invested in
the regeneration projects, that range from the recovery of entire neighbourhoods to the creation
or reconversion of infrastructures for cultural consumption or support knowledge-based or
creative industries. At the same time, they have developed an intense cultural agenda, reinventing and appropriating local traditions and memories with the participation of local
associations and non-governmental associations.
Tourism has become one of the principal focuses of all the local strategies presented, by the
direct and indirect revenue that it has provided not only to the municipalities but also to the
economic fabric of the regions. However, the increase in the tourism economy has brought
several criticisms. For example, in the classified historical centres observed, there were
processes of "musealisation" and "touristification" that restricted the access and the daily
practices of the residents and increased property prices. These processes pushed the inhabitants
to the peripheries, replacing the residential function of these centres with services mainly related
to tourism. In addition, cultural actors suffered the pressure to improve audiences and answer
to tourism market demands.
On the other hand, the images and celebrations explored by tourism draw attention to the
distinctive qualities of the place and reinforced the sense of belonging and pride of citizens,
aided by external recognition, and created possibilities to empower their communities. It also
created opportunities for the growth of artistic and cultural production and the emergence of
creative businesses, removing them from the periphery to connect to the world. Artists,
creatives and other cultural producers and managers are agents of formal and informal
dynamics, helping to build a lively place with unique experiences and alternative lifestyles. To
this end, municipalities, in addition to guaranteeing measures for the protection, conservation
and presentation of cultural and natural heritage, support the implementation of artistic
residences, studios or workplaces for creatives and producers, accompanied by measures to
stimulate artistic expression, entrepreneurship and the development of cultural or creative and
tailor-made business.
Besides, local cultural policies encompassed the creation and support of a range of cultural,
associative and recreational institutions, not only in the centre of cities but also in the
surrounding villages that linked old and new lifestyles and sociability. This type of initiatives
has opened space for the production and recovery of traditional cultural arts and activities, in
206
order to promote greater access to culture and its inclusion in daily life and, at the same time,
the emergence of new artistic expressions and creative and innovative activities.
Although, the most recognisable cultural policies developed focus mainly on the centre of
these municipalities, the interrelations between urban and rural, between the built environment
and the natural environment, are fundamental for the balance and sustainability of these
territories.
The role of local political leaders, but also of other relevant promoters of these urban
strategies, is considered essential for the empowerment and mobilisation of stakeholders and
the wider community for change. Their ability to negotiate tacitly and to create empathy and
synergies are qualities that are emphasised as decisive in building consensus and commitment
around cities' development goals and approach.
Similarly, new forms of governance have been promoted, such as collaborative partnerships
and networking, not only locally, but also remotely in pursuit of economies of scale and cost
reduction. It was also important to create links between the local strategic planning process and
national and European policies. They allowed the realisation of some projects that would
otherwise not be viable. In this sense, the traditional location factors are no longer seen as a
constraint to the development of smaller towns. Besides, to promote citizens’ engagement and
participation, local authorities opened the political reflection and decision-making processes to
citizens and supported cultural and social initiatives at community and neighbourhood level,
albeit in a more sustained manner in some situations than others. Many of these shifts in urban
policy stem from the perceived limitations of traditional top-down planning initiatives and the
growing complexity of development processes at multiple and overlapping scales.
One of the most important points discussed in the development of these cities is the
investment in education aimed to attract families, skilled workers and new investments, and
also, to provoke the transformation of mentalities and the openness to new ideas. Creating
formal and informal situations of learning and exchange of knowledge, promoting the link
between the cultural and educational field, inspires practices of innovation and creative
thinking, as observed in some local practices. Further, community-based educational programs
strengthen relationships with and between rural and urban communities and promote inclusion
and cultural involvement. Therefore, the synergy between culture and education policies is a
fundamental basis for the dissemination and evolution of local development strategies.
Despite the difficulty of presenting all the subtleties involved, the strategies and
development plans implemented in the different SMUA, consolidated in several projects and
sustained by a diversity of local public and private actors and civil society, represent attempts
207
or effective improvements for a more sustainable development. Concerning the typology of
development approaches produced in the comparative analysis, local authorities, in general,
have an instrumental perception of the value of culture and combine economic development
goals with initiatives oriented to community development.
Looking at the characteristics of SMUA, their small size, reduced diversity of resources and
weak density of interconnections are often pointed out reasons for the inability to change their
development path, particularly in the field of culture or creative economy. But, the constraints
and problems of large urban areas also give visibility to the qualities promoted in the strategies
of these urban centres. Features such as healthier lifestyles, the proximity between urban and
rural landscapes, availability of infrastructure and diversity of amenities, a culture of vitality
that combines heritage and tradition with contemporary cultural expressions, among others, are
commonly evidenced. Further, these territories, when associated with governance models that
promote collaboration, versatility and integration into multiple networks, can be seen as
laboratories for testing policy and strategic solutions.
From the research and analysis of these cases, we would like to review some key points that
are critical in defining local strategies and policies in SMUA:
- Planning context-sensitive to sociocultural peculiarities as well as structural
circumstances.
- Long-term commitment to a cultural strategy of the local political community and,
particularly, at an early stage and in times of crisis.
- Citizen empowerment in decision-making processes and implementation of projects for
the establishment of reliable partnerships and overcoming social tensions.
- Induction of collaborative and co-production processes and multi-sectoral approaches.
- Involvement in national and international networks to promote knowledge exchange,
promote partnerships, increase visibility and recognition of local strategy and overcome
territorial constraints.
- Selection of specialised niche markets based on local resources, historical-cultural legacy
and natural characteristics of sites related to well-being and quality of life.
- Promotion of projects of greater flexibility, proximity and small scale for greater
sustainability and capacity for innovation.
- Promotion of disruptive thinking and the inclusion of non-conventional or external actors
in the processes of change.
208
- Improvement of the balance between economic concerns, community development, and
protection and support for artists and cultural workers.
- Articulation between educational and cultural policies as a basis for development
processes.
- Investment in learning and training to attract young workers and skilled workers.
- Identification of the culture spillover effects in various sectors and scales.
- Enhancing the role of cultural actors, particularly, in establishing closer links with local
communities and in “transformational” planning.
- Develop appropriate mechanisms for coordination and funding of cultural activities and
organisations.
- Continuous public funding through state, local or regional government organisations or
even European Structural Funds.
- Implementation of cultural policies to promote and preserve cultural experiences for the
intellectual, emotional and spiritual development of the residents.
- Ensure principles of equity, inclusiveness and diversity.
- Recovering and reformulating local traditions and memory spaces to inspire new
economic activities and cultural practices.
In conclusion, our analysis has shown that culture understood as a set of tangible and
intangible resources and a variety of specialised activities - from the arts to the cultural and
creative industries - undoubtedly contributed to fostering the creation of differentiated and
innovative services and products that, in turn, stimulate local socio-economic development
through the generation of employment and income. However, it also reiterated its role in
strengthening human and social capital, reinforcing the sense of identity, preserving cultural
heritage and natural environment, providing a diversified knowledge and the inclusion of
minorities as well as contributing to change people's behaviour and empower citizens to explore
more sustainable development paths. In addition, culture is an instrument to legitimise
governments’ actions, to reach consensus and forms of collaboration in the provision of public
services. Thus, culture is increasingly identified by local governments as an inescapable tool
for achieving sustainable development in its different dimensions.
The analysis of culture in urban policies is immersed in a broader discussion that contrasts
the instrumental value of culture, to achieve ends that are external to it, to the promotion of
culture as an end in itself, recognising it as a whole of intrinsic qualities. Firstly, we must
underline that the relationship between cultural policies and urban development is
209
“constitutively instrumental” (Gibson, 2008), since both domains presume an instrumental
logic in the achievement of objectives conceivably beneficial to citizens as well as to other
sectors and government objectives to which they correlated (Kangas, 2016).
However, the values and roles perceived by public actors and society as a whole, and which
influence the design and financing of public policies on culture, have been changing as a result
of the increasing importance given to intangible factors such as “creativity, imagination, critical
intelligence, even negative thought, unconventional points of view, newly found ties with
traditions, beauty, harmony, knowledge, deep-reaching communication, empowerment”
(Culture Action Europe, 2015).
Community members, and especially the artists and professionals working in the cultural
field, that are increasing call to participate in the development process, advocate a broader
understanding of the value and role of culture. They demand the recognition of the intrinsic
benefits of culture and more qualitative approaches based on criteria of excellence that take into
account the specificities of the sector and their autonomy as a policy domain. However, they
are also aware that there is a need to improve the processes of accountability and legitimacy in
the cultural field to be more comprehensible to politicians and public opinion. Within the
cultural sector, some organisations intentionally chose to use culture explicitly to achieve
instrumental purposes, for example, educational or social purposes and which are concerned
with creating institutional value. Nevertheless, this cannot be achieved without considering
their intrinsic value (Holden, 2006).
Despite this productive tension in the discussion of cultural policies, and following several
authors, it is emphasised the need of transcending the intrinsic-instrumental dichotomy through
a governance model that integrates and takes into account the particular circumstances of each
place and the values, motivations and priorities of the different actors for a truly sustainable
development. As Kevin Mulcahy emphasises: “Cultural policies, then, need to be understood
not simply as administrative matters, but as reflecting a societal Weltanschauung; that is, a
worldview that defines the character of a society and how its citizenry define themselves... In
this sense, cultural policies represent a microcosm of social and political worldviews”
(Mulcahy, 2006: 273).
Thus, there are requests for the extension of concepts and to deepen the research and
evaluation about how culture interacts with the other dimensions of development, in different
contexts, scales and time periods to find appropriate solutions to urban challenges and citizens’
concerns. In its diverse expressions - symbolic, economic, social, political, artistic, linguistic,
creative, educational, environmental, among others - culture is considered essential not only for
210
the transformation of urban spaces and dynamics but also, in the particular case of SMUA, of
the natural environments and rural communities.
This broader understanding should allow the reformulation of the narratives around the
public value for investment in the arts, cultural activities and creative industries and should
include the analysis of commercial and amateur cultural practices but also about daily and
domestic cultural consumption and production. In addition, further clarification on the relations
of power and resistance between different actors and levels of governance in these policies is
also needed.
Finally, societies and cultures are neither static nor immutable, and many other perspectives
and themes can be considered and brought into the discussion. It may be particularly interesting
to compare the strategies and policies developed in SMUA with those implemented in larger
cities as well as in other parts of the world, for example in Africa or Asia, where many
innovative experiences are occurring. The reflection carried out in this dissertation should be
seen as a starting point for further research.
211
RESOURCES
European Union policy documents
CEC (2008). Green paper on territorial cohesion: turning territorial diversity into strength,
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of
the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Public. of the European Communities.
CEC (1999). ESDP - European Spatial Development Perspective: towards balanced and sustainable
development of the territory of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Public. of the
European Communities.
CEC (1998). Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action.
Communication from the Commission, COM (1998) 605 final, 28.10.98, Brussels: Commission of
the European Communities.
CEC (1997). Towards an urban agenda in the European Union. Communication from the
Commission, COM (97) 197, final, 06.05.97. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
CEC (1996). Cohesion policy and culture. A contribution to employment. Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. COM (96) 512 final. Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities.
Committee on Regional Development (2004) Report on the urban dimension of EU policies
(2014/2213(INI). Rapporteur: Kerstin Westphal. European Parliament. Available from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-20150218+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
EC (2016a) Boosting the competitiveness of cultural and creative industries for growth and jobs: final
report. Luxembourg: Publ. Office of the European Office.
EC (2016b) Country Report Finland 2016. Commission Staff Working Document No. SWD(2016) 94
final. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2014) National/Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). Cohesion Policy
2014–2020 Factsheet). Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2013) Commission Regulation No 1319/2013 of 9 December 2013 amending annexes to
Regulation No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a
common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) Official Journal of European Union
18.12.2013, L342/1.
EC (2012a) Commission Staff Working Document. Assessment of the 2012 national reform
programme and stability programme for Finland. Accompanying the document Recommendation
for a Council Recommendation on Finland’s 2012 national reform programme and delivering a
Council Opinion on Finland’s updated stability programme for 2012-2015 (SWD/2012/0312 final).
EC (2012b) Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU. Communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2012) 537 final. Brussels: European
Commission.
213
EC (2011a) Commission Communication Creative Europe – A new framework programme for the
cultural and creative sectors 2014–2020. COM(2011) 786 final.
EC (2011b) Cities of tomorrow: challenges, visions, ways forward, European Union - Regional Policy.
Luxembourg: Publ. Office of the European Office.
EC (2011c) Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 - Towards an Inclusive, Smart and
Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers
Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May. Gödöllő, Hungary:
European Commission.
EC (2011d) European arts festivals: Strengthening cultural diversity. Luxembourg: Publ. Office of the
European Office.
EC (2010a) Green Paper: unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries. 27.4.2010 COM
(2010) 183 final. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2010b) Communication from the Commission. Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final.
EC (2007a) A European agenda for culture in a globalizing world. Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM (2007) 242 final. Brussels: European
Commission.
EC (2007b) Territorial agenda of the European Union - Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable
Europe of diverse regions. Final draft. Agreed on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting
on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2000) The Lisbon European Council – An agenda of economic and social renewal for Europe.
Contribution of the European Commission to the special European Council in Lisbon, 23-24 March
2000. DOC/00/7. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (1992) New prospects for Community cultural action. Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. COM(92) 149 final, 29
April 1992.
EP (2011) Barriers for applicants to Structural Funding, Study, Directorate General for Internal
Policies Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Regional Development, Metis
GmbH, IP/B/REGI/FWC/2010-002/Lot1/C1/SC2, Vienna 15/02/2012.
EP (2009) European Parliament Resolution on the role of culture in the development of European
regions (B6‑0168/2009).
EP (2008) European Parliament Resolution of 10 April 2008 on cultural industries in Europe
(2007/2153(INI)).
ESPON (2012) TIGER - Territorial Impact of Globalisation for Europe and its Regions. ESPON 2013
Programme. Draft Final Report. European Spatial Planning and Observation Network.
ESPON (2006a) Territory Matters for Competitiveness and Cohesion. Facets of regional diversity and
potentials in Europe. ESPON Synthesis Report III. Luxembourg: European Spatial Planning
Observation Network.
ESPON (2006b) The role of small and medium-sized towns. Final Report. ESPON Project 1.4.1.
European Spatial Planning and Observation Network.
ESPON (2005) Potentials for polycentric development in Europe. Final Report No. ESPON 1.1.1.
European Spatial Planning and Observation Network.
214
ESPON (2004) Urban-rural relations in Europe. Final Report. Project 1.1.2, ESPON 2000-2006
programme. Luxembourg: European Spatial Planning Observation Network.
ESPON 2013 Programme (2014) Evidence for a European urban agenda. Territorial observation.
Luxembourg: European Spatial Planning Observation Network. Available from:
https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/TO13%20%20Evidence%20for%20a%20European%20Urban%20Agenda.pdf
ESPON 2013 Programme (2015) European Towns and Territorial Cooperation. Luxembourg:
European Spatial Planning Observation Network https://www.espon.eu/topicspolicy/publications/maps-month/european-towns-and-territorial-cooperation
Eurostat (2016) Urban Europe: statistics on cities, towns and suburbs, 2016 edition. Luxembourg:
Publ. Office of the European Union
Eurostat (2012), “Focus on territorial typologies.” in: Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2012, Luxembourg:
Publ. Office of the European Union, 193–201, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5735193/KS-HA-12-001-14-EN.PDF/7cb7d907e19c-4d9e-8cf8-3262233460c0?version=1.0
Eurostat (2011) Regions in the European Union: nomenclature of territorial units for statistics: NUTS
2010/EU-27. Luxembourg: EUR-OP.
Eurostat (2010) “A revised urban–rural typology.” in: Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2010,
Luxembourg: Publ. Office of the European Union, 240–253.
Eurostat (2000) Cultural Statistics in the EU. Final Report of the LEG. Eurostat Working Papers
Population and Social Conditions 3/2000/E/No. I. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Eurostat (1992) The statistical concept of the town in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publ.
of the European Communities.
National Government Legislative References
Czech Republic
Government Resolution No. 560/2006 of 17 May 2006 on the “Strategy of the Regional Development
of the Czech Republic valid for the period of 2007 – 2013.”
Government Resolution No. 393 of 15 April 2015 on the “State Cultural Policy for 2015–2020 (with
outlook up to 2025). Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic.
Decree no. 1452 in November 19, 2008: “National cultural policy from 2009 – 2014.”
Decree no. 401 of April in 1999: “Strategy of Effective Cultural Support”
Finland
Finnish Act on Regional Development and the Administration of Structural Funds (7/2014).
http://tem.fi/en/legislation-on-regional-development
Finnish Municipal Cultural Activities Act (728/1992, amended 1681/1992). Legislative basis for the
central government support to non-institutional cultural activities in municipalities
Portugal
Article 235 (Local authorities) Constitution of the Portuguese Republic of 1976
215
Article 236 (Categories of local authority and administrative division) Constitution of the Portuguese
Republic of 1976
Portuguese Law no. 159/99 of 14 September and Law 169/99 of 18 September, the latter amended by
Law 5-A/2002 of 11 January (Framework for transferring competences and jurisdictions to local
authorities and the legal system regulating the work of municipal and parish bodies respectively).
Portuguese Law no. 35/88 of 4 February (Framework for primary school teachers and early childhood
educators, establishing measures for a better rationalisation of the available human resources).
Resolution of Council of Ministers no. 187/96 (Ratifies the Municipal Master Plan of Óbidos.
Approved by The Municipal Assembly of Óbidos - Meeting of August 26 and November 4, 1995).
Resolution of Council of Ministers no. 33/2008 (Ratifies the partial suspension of the Municipal
Master Plan of Óbidos for two years and publishes preventive measures for the same area and
during the same period).
Diário da República 2nd series – n. 114/2013 of 17th June 2013. Notice no. 7804/2013 “Alteração ao
Plano Diretor Municipal de Óbidos na área do Bom Sucesso” (An announcement of the proposal for
an amendment to the Master Plan of Óbidos, approved by the Municipal Assembly of Óbidos Meeting of February 26, 2013, under the proposal of the City Council of Óbidos, deliberated in a
public meeting of February 6, 2013).
Article 10, Decree-Law no. 7/2003 of 15 January. (Approves the process of drawing up an educational
charter, transferring skills to local authorities).
Council of Ministers Resolution n. 44/2010 on June 14th (Defines the criteria for reorganizing the
school network).
United Kingdom
Charities Act 2011. Adopted on: 2011-12-14 Available at
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/pdfs/ukpga_20110025_en.pdf
Institutional sites
Český Krumlov Official Information System http://www.ckrumlov.info/docs/en/kaktualita.xml
Czech Statistical Office https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/statistics
City of Jyväskylä http://www3.jkl.fi/
City of York Council http://www.york.gov.uk/
Electronic Portal for Local Government ePUSA. Ministry of the interior of the Czech Republic.
www.epusa.cz/
Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) https://www.istat.it/
Óbidos Municipality http://www.cm-obidos.pt/
Statistics Finland https://www.stat.fi/
Statistics Portugal - Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE) https://www.ine.pt/
UK Office for National Statistics https://www.ons.gov.uk/
216
REFERENCES
Adams, D. (1994) Urban planning and the development process. London: UCL Press.
Adorno, T., Horkheimer, M. (1979) [1944] “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”.
in: T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment, Translated by John Cumming.
Verso.
AFLRA (2014). Adjustment programme for local government finances 2014-2018. Approved by the
Board of the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities.
Agnew, J. (2011) “Space and place.” in: John A. Agnew, and David N. Livingstone (eds.) Sage
Handbook. Geographic Knowledge. 316–330.
Albrechts, L. (2010) “More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be
instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead?” Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 37, 1115–1127.
Albrechts, L. (2006) “Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia.”
Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1149–1170.
Albrechts, L. (2004) “Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined.” Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 31(5), 743–758.
Albrechts, L., Healey, P., Kunzmann, K.R. (2003) “Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional
Governance in Europe.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69(2), 113–129.
Allan, C., Grimes, A., Kerr, S. (2013) Value and culture: An economic framework. Manatū TaongaMinistry for Culture and Heritage, Wellington.
Allingham, P. (2009) “Experiential Strategies for the Survival of Small Cities in Europe.” European
Planning Studies, 17(6), 905–923.
Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G. (2009) “Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new
spatial planning in the Thames Gateway.” Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 617–633.
Almeida, J. de F., Pinto, J.M. (1975) “Teoria e investigação empírica nas ciências sociais”. Análise
Social, 365–445.
Almond, G., Verba, S. (1963) The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five countries.
Princeton: Princeton university, 3.
Amin, A. (2002) “Spatialities of globalisation”. Environment and Planning A, 34, 385–399.
Amin, A. (1994) “Post-Fordism: Models, Fantasies and Phantoms of Transition”, in: A. Amin (ed.),
Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–39.
Amin, A., Thrift, N.J. (eds.) (2004) The Blackwell Cultural Economy Reader, Blackwell readers in
geography. Blackwell.
Amorim, J.P. (2000) As empresas públicas no direito português: em especial, as empresas municipais.
Coimbra: Almedina.
Anand, S., Sen, A. (2000) “The income component of the human development index”. Journal of
human development, 1(1), 83–106.
Andreotti, A. et al. (2001) Does a Southern European model exist? Journal of European Area Studies,
9(1), 43–62.
217
Anheier, H.K., Hoelscher, M. (2015) “Cultural sustainability in small and medium-sized cities”, in: S.
Khristova, M. Dragićević-Šešić and N. Duxbury (eds.) Culture and Sustainability in European
Cities: Imagining Europolis. Routledge, 17–31.
Anico, M. (2009) “Políticas da Cultura em Portugal e Espanha”. PASOS Revista de turismo y
patrimonio cultural, 7(1), 57–71.
Antikainen, J., Vartiainen, P. (2002) “Finnish districts and regional differentiation”. FenniaInternational Journal of Geography, 180(1-2), 183–190.
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Arnkil, R., et al. (2010) “Exploring quadruple helix outlining user-oriented innovation models.” Final
Report on Quadruple Helix Research for the CLIQ project. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Institute for Social Research.
Arrighi, G. (1985) Semiperipheral development: the politics of southern Europe in the twentieth
century. Sage.
Ascani, A., Crescenzi, R., Iammarino, S. (2012) Regional Economic Development. WP1/03 Search
Working Paper. Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and
Political Science.
Asheim, B.T., Boschma, R., Cooke, P. (2011) “Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies
based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases.” Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904.
Asheim, B.T., Cooke, P., Martin, R. (2006) Clusters and regional development: critical reflections
and explorations, Regional development and public policy series. London and New York:
Routledge.
ATI (2015) Research Project Mapping Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) in the Czech Republic
2011–2015. Supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. Arts and Theatre Institute.
Atkinson, R. (2015) “The Urban Dimension in Cohesion Policy: Past Developments and Future
Prospects.” European Structural & Investment Funds Journal, 3(1).
Atkinson, R. (2008) “European urban policies and the neighbourhood: an overview”. Proceedings of
the ICE-Urban Design and Planning, 161, 115–122.
Atkinson, R. (2001) “The emerging ’urban agenda’ and the European spatial development perspective:
Towards an EU urban policy?” European Planning Studies, 9(3), 385–406.
Atkinson, R., Lane, C. (2007) “EU Urban Policy, European Urban Policies and the Neighbourhood:
An overview of concepts, programmes and strategies”. A EURA Conference–The Vital City,
Glasgow.
Avdeev, A., et al. (2011) “Populations et tendances démographiques des pays européens (19802010)”. Population, 66(1), 9–133.
Aydalot, P. (1986) Milieux innovateurs en Europe. Groupe de recherche européen sur les milieux
innovateurs, Paris.
Bache, I. (2008). “Europeanization and multi-level governance: Empirical findings and conceptual
challenges.” Working Paper no. 16. ARENA Centre for European Studies. University of Oslo.
Bache, I., Flinders, M.V. (eds.) (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bache, I., Jordan, A. (2006) “The Europeanization of British Politics”, in: I. Bache, A. and Jordan The
Europeanization of British Politics. Springer, 265–279.
218
Bachtler, J. (2010) “Place-based policy and regional development in Europe”. Horizons 10(44), 54–
58.
Bahaire, T., Ellliott-White, M. (2000) “Tourism management and community participation in York”.
in: Resort Management in Europe: Case Studies and Learning Materials. in Resort Management in
Europe: Case Studies and Learning Material (2000), London: Thomson, 140–147.
Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A., Higgs, P.L. (2013) A dynamic mapping of the UK’s creative industries.
NESTA.
Balcerowicz, L. (2002) “Post-communist transition: some lessons. A Comparative Perspective.”
National Bank of Poland, paper presented to the International Center for Monetary and Banking
Studies, Geneva 22. March 2005.
Banks, M. (2007) The politics of cultural work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barbieri, N. (2015) A narrative-interactionist approach to policy change analysis. Lessons from a case
study of the cultural policy domain in Catalonia. Critical Policy Studies, 9(4), 434–453.
Barbieri, N. (2014) “Cultura, políticas públicas y bienes comunes: hacia unas políticas de lo cultural”.
Kult-Ur, 1(1), 101–119.
Barbieri, N. (2012) “Why does cultural policy change? Policy discourse and policy subsystem: a case
study of the evolution of cultural policy in Catalonia”. International Journal of Cultural Policy,
18(1), 13–30.
Barbieri, N., Fina, X., Subirats, J. (2012) “Culture and urban policies: dynamics and effects of cultural
third sector interventions in Barcelona.” Métropoles, (11) [online], Available from:
http://journals.openedition.org/metropoles/4605.
Barca, F. (2009) Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to meeting
European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta
Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy.
Barca, F., McCann, P., Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012) “The Case for Regional Development Intervention:
Place-Based Versus Place-Neutral Approaches.” Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152.
Bassett, K. (1993) “Urban cultural strategies and urban regeneration: a case study and critique”.
Environment and Planning A, 25(12), 1773–1788.
Baudrillard, J. (1998) The consumer society: myths and structures. [Originally published as La société
de consummation, Editions Denoël, 1970]. Theory, culture & society. London: Sage.
Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: the human consequences, European perspectives. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Becattini, G. (1990) “The Marshallian Industrial District as a Socio-economic Concept”. in: F. Pyke,
G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger (eds.) Industrial Districts and Interfirm Cooperation in Italy.
Genova: IILS, 37–51.
Becattini, G. (1975) Lo sviluppo economico della Toscana: con particolare riguardo
all’industrializzazione leggera. Firenze: Istituto Regionale per la Programmazione Economica della
Toscana.
Beck, A. (ed.) (2003) Cultural work: understanding the cultural industries. London and New York:
Routledge.
Becker, G.S. (1984) Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Becker, H.S. (1982) Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beckmann, S. (2001) Conditions for Creative Artists in Europe. EU Presidency Seminar, Visby.
219
Begg, I. (1999) “Cities and competitiveness.” Urban Studies, 36(5-6), 795–809.
Belfiore, E. (2009) “On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research: notes from the British case”.
International Journal of Cultural Policy 15(3), 343–359.
Belfiore, E. (2004) “Auditing culture: The subsidised cultural sector in the New Public Management”.
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2), 183–202.
Belfiore, E. (2002) “Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of
instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK”. International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 8(1), 91–106.
Belfiore, E., Bennett, O. (2007) “Rethinking the Social Impacts of The Arts.” International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 13(2), 135–151.
Bell, D. (1976) The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
Bell, D. (1973) The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. New York:
Basic Books.
Bell, D., Jayne, M. (2010) “The creative countryside: Policy and practice in the UK rural cultural
economy.” Jornal Rural Studies, 26(3), 209–218.
Bell, D., Jayne, M. (2009) “Small Cities? Towards a Research Agenda”. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 683–699.
Bell, D., Jayne, M. (2006) Small cities: urban experience beyond the metropolis. Routledge.
Benjamin, W. (1999). The Arcades Project, [first published in 1982. Transl. of Das Passagen-Werk].
Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press
Benner, M. (2003) “The Scandinavian challenge: the future of advanced welfare states in the
knowledge economy.” Acta Sociologica, 46(2), 132–149.
Bennett, T. (2001) Differing diversities: transversal study on the theme of cultural policy and cultural
diversity. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ.
Bently, G. (2012) “Local economic development and local enterprise partnerships”, in J. Raine and C.
Staite - The world will be your oyster? Reflections on the Localism Act of 2011. Edgbaston: Institute
of Local Government Studies, School of Government and Society, Univ. of Birmingham, 83-88.
Berdegué, J.A., Proctor, F.J. (2014). Inclusive Rural–Urban Linkages. Working Paper Series n. 123.
Working Group: Development with Territorial Cohesion. Territorial Cohesion for Development
Program. Rimisp – Latin American Center for Rural Development, Santiago, Chile.
Besson, E., et al. (2007) Brakes and difficulties faced by small and medium sized cities in the view of
developing European cultural networks. Cultural Routes Cases. D19 Final Version PICTURE
programme.
Beyers, W. (2003) “On the geography of the new economy: perspectives from the United States.” The
Service Industries Journal, 23(1), 4–26.
Bezanson, K., Sagasti, F. (2005). Prospects for Development Thinking and Practice. Report submitted
to Rockefeller Foundation, Seaford, Sussex, UK and Lima, Peru.
Bianchini, F. (1999) “Cultural planning for urban sustainability.” City and culture: Cultural processes
and urban sustainability. 1, 34–51.
Bianchini, F., Parkinson, M. (1993). Cultural policy and urban regeneration: the West European
experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bille, T. (2012) “The Scandinavian approach to the experience economy – does it make sense?”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18, 93–110.
220
Birkeland, I. (2015) “The potential space for cultural sustainability”. Theory and Practice in Heritage
and Sustainability: Between Past and Future, 161–175.
Boix, R., Trullén, J. (2007) “Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional urban systems”.
Papers in Regional Science, 86(4), 551–574.
Bolton, T., Coupar, K. (2011) Cause célèbre or cause for concern? Local enterprise partnerships one
year on. London: Centre for Cities.
Borraz, O., Galès, P.L. (2010). Urban Governance in Europe: The Government of What? Métropoles
(7) [online], Available from: http://journals.openedition.org/metropoles/4297.
Borraz, O., John, P. (2004) “The transformation of urban political leadership in Western Europe.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 107–120.
Boschma, R. (2013). Constructing Regional Advantage and Smart Specialization: Comparison of Two
European Policy Concepts. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography. Utrecht University,
Section of Economic Geography.
Boundary Commission for England (2007). Fifth periodical report. Presented to Parliament pursuant
to section 3(5) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (1). London: The Stationery Office.
Bozóki, A., et al. (2014) 25 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain: the state of integration of East and
West in the European Union. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation, Luxembourg: Publ. Office of the European Union.
Brenner, N. (2004) “Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe,
1960–2000”. Review of International Political Economy 11(3), 447–488.
Brenner, N. (2000) “The urban question as a scale question: reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban
theory and the politics of scale.” International journal of urban and regional research 24(2), 361378.
Brenner, N. (1999) “Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the
European Union.” Urban Studies, 36(3), 431–451.
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., Mayer, M. (eds.) (2012). Cities for people, not for profit: critical urban
theory and the right to the city. London and New York: Routledge.
Brenner, N., Peck, J., Theodore, N. (2010) After neoliberalization? Globalizations 7(3), 327–345.
Brenner, N., Schmid, C. (2015) “Towards a new epistemology of the urban?” City, 19(2-3), 151–182.
Brenner, N., Theodore, N. (2005) “Neoliberalism and the urban condition.” City, 9(1), 101–107.
Brenner, N., Theodore, N. (2002) “Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’.”
Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.
Brenner, N., Peck, J., Theodore, N. (2010) After neoliberalization? Globalizations 7(3), 327–345.
Bristow, G. (2010). Critical reflections on regional competitiveness: theory, policy and practice.
Routledge studies in human geography. London and New York: Routledge.
Bruell, C. (2013). Creative Europe 2014-2020 a new programme - a new cultural policy as well?
Stuttgart: Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen.
Burrows, R., Loader, B. (2003). Towards a post-Fordist welfare state? London and New York:
Routledge.
Bustamante Fajardo, L.M. (2014). L’UNESCO et la culture: construction d’une catégorie
d’intervention internationale, du développement culturel á la diversité culturelle (Doctoral Thesis).
École des hautes études en sciences sociales.
221
Camagni, R. (2008) “Regional competitiveness: towards a concept of territorial capital”, in: R.
Capello, R. Camagni, B. Chizzolini and U. Fratesi Modelling Regional Scenarios for the Enlarged
Europe: European Competitiveness and Global Strategies. Springer, Berlin. 33–47.
Camagni, R. (1991) “’Local milieu’, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a new dynamic
theory of economic space.” in: R. Camagni (ed.), Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives.
London: Belhaven-Pinter, 121–144.
Camagni, R., Capello, R. (2004) “The City Network Paradigm: Theory and Empirical Evidence.” in:
R. Capello, P. Nijkamp (eds.), Urban Dynamics and Growth: Advances in Urban Economics.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 495–529.
Canário, R. (2004) “Territórios educativos e políticas de intervenção prioritária: uma análise crítica”.
Perspectiva, 22, 47–78.
Canário, R. (2000) “A escola no mundo rural: contributos para a construção de um objecto de estudo”.
Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 14, 121–139.
Canário, R. (1995) “Desenvolvimento local e educação não-formal.” Educação e Ensino 11, 31–34.
Capello, R. (2011) “Location, Regional Growth and Local Development Theories.” Aestimum, 1–25.
Capello, R. (2009a) “Space, growth and development.” R. Capello and P. Nijkamp (eds.) Handbook
Regional Growth Development Theory, 33-54.
Capello, R. (2009b) “Spatial spillovers and regional growth: a cognitive approach.” European
Planning Studies, 17(5), 639–658.
Capello, R. (2004) “Agglomeration Economies and Urban Productivity: the case of the High-tech
Industry in the Milan Metropolitan area”. 39th European Regional Science Association Congress in
Dublin, 1999, 90–112.
Capello, R. (2000) “The city network paradigm: measuring urban network externalities.” Urban
Studies, 37(11), 1925–1945.
Carnwath, J.D., Brown, A.S. (2014). Understanding the value and impacts of cultural experiences.
Manchester: Arts Council of England.
Castells, M. (2004) “Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of urbanism in the
information age”, in: S. Graham (ed.), The Cybercities Reader. The Routledge Urban Reader Series.
London and New York: Routledge, 82–93.
Castells, M. (1999) “Grassrooting the space of flows.” Urban Geography 20, 294–302.
Castells, M. (1998) The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Vol. 3, End of Millennium.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 1, The Rise of the
Network Society. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1977) The urban question: A Marxist approach [orig. La Question Urbaine, 1972].
London: Edward Arnold.
Castells, M., Himanen, P. (2002) The information society and the welfare state: The Finnish model.
Oxford University Press on Demand.
CEMR (2013) Decentralisation at a crossroads Territorial reforms in Europe in times of crisis.
Council of European Municipalities and Regions.
Centre for Cities (2012) European Comparator City Report: York. Available from:
http://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/12-02-16-European-comparator-cityreport-York.pdf
222
Champion, T. (2001) “Urbanisation, suburbanisation, counterurbanisation and reurbanisation.” in: R.
Paddison (ed.), Handbook of Urban Studies. London: Sage, 143–161.
Chartrand, H., McCaughey, C. (1989) “The arm’s length principle and the arts: an international
perspective–past, present and future.” Who’s to Pay for the Arts, 43–80.
Cheema, G.S. and Rondinelli, D.A. (eds.) (2007) Decentralizing Governance. Emerging Concepts and
Practices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and the Ash Institute for Democratic
Governance and Innovation.
Cheshire, P. (1995) “A new phase of urban development in Western Europe? The evidence for the
1980s.” Urban Studies, 32(7), 1045–1063.
City of Jyväskylä (2014) Culture and Wellness. Creative Clusters in Low Density Urban Areas. Local
Action Plan – URBACT II programme.
City of Jyväskylä (2017) Jyväskylä city strategy 2017–2021 Ahead of its time. Approved by Jyväskylä
City Council on 30.10.2017. Available from:
https://www.jyvaskyla.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/jyvaskyla/embeds/jyvaskylawwwstru
cture/74970_strategia_eng.pdf
City of Jyväskylä (2014) Jyväskylä city strategy. Approved by Jyväskylä city council on 15.12.2014.
Available from: http://www.edufin.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Eino_Leisimo_extra.pdf
City of Jyväskylä (n.d.). Jyväskylän Kangas. Available from:
http://www3.jkl.fi/blogit/kangasjyvaskyla/?page_id=489.
Clark, T. N. et al. (2003) “Amenities drive urban growth: a new paradigm and policy linkages.”
Research in Urban Policy, 9: 291–322.
Cliché, D. (2001) “Culture, governance & regulation.” in François Matarasso (ed.) Recognising
Culture. A series of briefing papers on culture and development. Comedia, Department of Canadian
Heritage and UNESCO. Available from: http://www.institutumeni.cz/res/data/004/000567.pdf.
CMO (2011) Óbidos Local Action Plan. Creative Footprint. The next big step will be a lot of small
steps. Câmara Municipal de Óbidos. Creative Clusters in Low Density Urban Areas. Local Action
Plan – URBACT II programme.
CMO (2005) Carta Educativa do Concelho de Óbidos. Câmara Municipal de Óbidos Available from:
http://escolasdobidos.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/carta_educativa.pdf
CMO (n.d.) Plano Estratégico Educativo Municipal de Óbidos 2016 – 2020. Available from:
http://www.cm-obidos.pt/Download.aspx?x=a34ddab6-3505-41d1-b464-fcc7db927e57
Coats, D., Passmore, E. (2008) Public value: The next steps in public service reform. Work
Foundation.
CoE (1954) European Cultural Convention. Council of Europe Treaty Series no. 018. Adopted on 19
December 1954 in Paris.
Coffey, W.J., Polèse, M. (1984) “The concept of local development: a stages model of endogenous
regional growth.” Papers in Regional Science, 55(1), 1–12.
Collier, D. (1991) “The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change.” in: D.A. Rustow and K.P.
Erickson (Eds.) Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives. New York:
HarperCollins, 7–31.
Combes, P.-P., Gobillon L. (2015) “The empirics of agglomeration economies,” in: G. Duranton, J.V.
Henderson and W.C. Strange (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5, Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 247–348.
223
Committee on Culture – UCLG (2011) (2011) “Policy Statement: 'Culture: Fourth Pillar of
Sustainable Development'.” Culture and Local Governance, 1, 161-164.
Committee on Culture – UCLG (2004). Agenda 21 for culture. Approved by the 4th Forum of Local
Authorities for Social Inclusion of Porto Alegre, held in Barcelona on 8 May 2004 as part of the
first Universal Forum of Cultures.
Cooke, P.N., Lazzeretti, L. (2008) Creative cities, cultural clusters and local economic development.
Edward Elgar.
Cooke, P.N., Piccaluga, A. (2004) Regional economies as knowledge laboratories. Edward Elgar.
Copus, A. (2013) “Urban-rural relationships in the new century: clarifying and updating the
intervention logic.” in: M. Kolczyński (ed.), New Paradigm in Action - on Successful Partnerships.
Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw, 7–29.
Corkill, D., Almeida, J.C. (2007) “Commemoration and propaganda in Salazar’s Portugal: the
Portuguese World Exhibition of 1940.” Journal of Contemporary History, 44(3), 381-399.
Costa, A.F. da (1997) “Políticas culturais: conceitos e perspectivas.” OBS - Obs. Atividades Culturais,
2, 10–14.
Costa, P. (2015) “Políticas culturais para o desenvolvimento dos territórios: alguns elementos de
síntese.” in: P. Costa (ed.) Políticas Culturais Para o Desenvolvimento. Conferência
ARTEMREDE. Almada, 110–132.
Costa, P. (2010) Cultural activities, innovative milieus and urban policies: a comparison of two
districts in the city of Lisbon. DINAMIA-CET Working Paper nº 2010/04.
Costa, P. (2008) “Creativity, innovation and territorial agglomeration in cultural activities: the roots of
the creative city.” in: P. Cooke, L. Lazzeretti (eds.), Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local
Economic Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 183–210.
Costa, P. (2007) A cultura em Lisboa: competitividade e desenvolvimento territorial. Lisboa: Impresa
de Ciências Sociais.
Costa, P. (2002a) “The cultural activities cluster in Portugal: trends and perspectives”. Sociologia,
Problemas e Práticas, 99–114.
Costa, P. (2002b). As actividades culturais e a competitividade territorial: o caso da Área
Metropolitana de Lisboa. Dissertação de Doutoramento em Planeamento Regional e Urbano.
Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, ISEG/UTL, Lisboa.
Costa, P. (1999). “Actividades culturais e desenvolvimento regional: novos caminhos para a
competitividade territorial.” Cidades e Regiões na União Europeia: Actas do VI Encontro Nacional.
Costa, P., Lopes, R. (2016) Artistic Urban Interventions, Informality and Public Sphere: Research
Insights from Ephemeral Urban Appropriations on a Cultural District. DINÂMIA’CET-IUL
Working Paper n. 2016/05.
Costa, P., Lopes, R. (2013) “Urban design, public space and creative milieus: an international
comparative approach to informal dynamics in cultural districts.” Cidades, Comunidades e
Territórios, 26, 40–66.
Costa, P., et al. (2007). “A discussion on the governance of ‘Creative Cities’: Some insights for policy
action.” Norwegian Journal of Geography, 61(3), 122–132.
Costa, P., Vasconcelos, B., Sugahara, G. (2011) “The urban milieu and the genesis of creativity in
cultural activities: An introductory framework for the analysis of urban creative dynamics.”
Cidades, Comunidades e Territórios, 22, 3–21.
224
Couch, C. (2016) Urban Planning: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Couch, C. (1990) Urban renewal: theory and practice. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Couch, C., Fraser, C., Percy, S. (eds.) (2003) Urban regeneration in Europe, Real estate issues.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Couch, C., Sykes, O., Börstinghaus, W. (2011) “Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain,
Germany and France: The importance of context and path dependency.” Progress in Planning,
75(1), 1–52.
CoE (2007) Local authority competences in Europe. Study of European Committee on Local and
Regional Democracy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Crespi, F. (1997) Manual de Sociologia da Cultura. Estampa, Lisboa.
Crevoisier, O. (2014) “Beyond territorial innovation models: the pertinence of the territorial
approach.” Regional Studies, 48(3), 551–561.
Crossick, G., Kaszynska, P. (2016) Understanding the value of arts and culture: the AHRC Cultural
Value Project, Arts and Humanities Research Council [online] Available from:
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/publications/ cultural-value-project-final-report
CSES, 2010. Study on the contribution of culture to local and regional development – Evidence from
the structural funds, final report. Kent, UK: Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services.
Cuche, D. (1994). La notion de culture dans les sciences sociales. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
Culture Action Europe (2015) Culture and wellbeing: theory, methodology and other challenges. An
itinerary. Report for Culture Action Europe. Available from:
https://cultureactioneurope.org/document/cae-20142015-final-reflection-paperstoolkits/cae2015_cultureandwellbeing/.
Culture Action Europe (2014) “Culture Action Europe’s appeal for the European Elections 2014.”
Annex 1, in: European Elections 2014 Europe is a cultural peace project, not just a form of
government! Available from: https://cjsm.be/cultuur/sites/cjsm.cultuur/files/public/europeanelections-toolkit_version-20140124.pdf
Cummings, M. C., Katz, R. S. (1987) The patron state: Government and the arts in Europe, North
America, and Japan. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, S. (2002) “From cultural to creative industries: theory, industry and policy
implications.” Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 102(1), 54–65.
Currid, E. (2009) “Bohemia as Subculture; ‘Bohemia’ as Industry: Art, Culture, and Economic
Development.” Journal of Planning Literature, 23(4), 368–382.
D’Angelo, M. (2000) Cultural policies in Europe: local issues. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Davies, M. (2010) “Works, Products, and the Division of labour: Notes for a Cultural and Political
Economic Critique,” in: M. Patterson and J. Best (eds.) Cultural Political Economy, London:
Routledge, 48–64.
Davoudi, S. (2003) “European Briefing: Polycentricity in European spatial planning: from an
analytical tool to a normative agenda.” European Planning Studies, 11(8), 979–999.
DCMS (2001) Creative Industries Mapping Documents. London: Department for Culture, Media and
Sport.
DCMS (1998) Creative Industries Mapping Document. London: Department for Culture, Media and
Sport.
225
De Beukelaer, C. (2014) “The UNESCO/UNDP 2013 Creative Economy Report: Perks and Perils of
an Evolving Agenda.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(2), 90–100.
De Marchi, G., Lucertini, G., Tsoukiàs, A. (2016) “From evidence-based policy making to policy
analytics.” Annals of Operations Research, 236(1), 15–38.
Debord, G. (1994) The society of the spectacle [Orig. published as La société du spectacle, 1967].
New York: Zone Books.
Delanty, G. (2002) Inventing Europe: idea, identity, reality. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Depaigne, J. (1978) Cultural Policies in Europe. Synopsis of the national reports submitted to the
Conference of European Ministers with Responsibility for Cultural Affairs, Oslo, 1976. Council of
Europe.
DGT (2016) Habitat III–National Report Portugal. Direção-Geral do Território.
Dhéret, C., Morosi, M. (2014) Towards a New Industrial Policy for Europe. EPC Issue Paper No. 78.
November. European Policy Centre.
DiGaetano, A., Strom, E. (2003) “Comparative Urban Governance: An Integrated Approach.” Urban
Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 356–395.
Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H. (2012) A harmonised definition of cities and rural areas: The new degree of
urbanisation. WP 01/2014. Brussels: European Commission. [online] Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban.pdf.
Doloreux, D., Parto, S. (2004) Regional Innovation Systems: A Critical Synthesis. The United Nations
University, Institute for New Technologies, UNU- INTECH.
Donati, P. (2013) “Relational Sociology and the Globalized Society.” Applying Relational Sociology,
1-24.
Donati, P. (2010) Relational sociology: a new paradigm for the social sciences. London: Routledge.
Doucet, B. (2007) “Flagship regeneration: Panacea or urban problem.” EURA Conference: The Vital
City, 12–14.
Douglas, G. (2012) “Cultural Expectations and Urban Development: The Role of ‘Cultural Sensitivity’
and ‘Cultural Sincerity’ in Local Growth Politics.” Sociological Perspectives, 55(1), 213–236.
Drucker, P.F. (1989) The New Realities: In Government and Politics, in Economics and Business,
in Society and World View. New York: Harper & Row.
Du Gay, P. et al. (1997) Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. Culture, Media &
Identities, Vol. 1, London: Sage.
Du Gay, P., Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural economy: cultural analysis and commercial life. London: Sage.
Dubois, H.F., Fattore, G. (2009) Definitions and typologies in public administration research: the case
of decentralization. Int. Journal of Public Administration, 32(8), 704–727.
Dubois, V. (2016). El «modelo francés» y su «crisis»: ambiciones, ambigüedades y retos de una
política cultural. DEBATS, 130, 2, 33-52
Dubois, V. (2013) Cultural Policy Regimes in Western Europe. à paraître dans l’International
encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. [online] https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs00836422/document.
Dubois, V. (1999) La politique culturelle. Genèse d’une catégorie d’intervention publique. Paris:
Belin.
Duelund, P. (2008) “Nordic cultural policies: A critical view.” International Journal of Cultural
Policy, 14(1), 7–24.
226
Duelund, P. (2004) The Rationalities of Cultural Policy–Approach to a Critical Model of Analysing
Cultural Policy. A Paper Presented at The3rd International Conference on Cultural Policy Research,
Montreal, Canada.
Duelund, P. (2003) The Nordic Cultural Model. Copenhagen: Nordic Cultural Institute.
Duranton, G. (2015) “Growing through cities in developing countries.” The World Bank Research
Observer, 30, 39–73.
Duxbury, N. (2014) “Cultural governance in sustainable cities.” Kult-Ur, 1, 165–182.
Duxbury, N. (2012) “Shifting strategies and contexts for culture in small city planning: Interlinking
quality of life, economic development, downtown vitality, and community sustainability”. in: A.
Lorentzen and B. Van Heur (eds.) Cultural political economy of small cities. London: Routledge,
161-178.
Duxbury, N., Campbell, H. (2009) Developing and Revitalizing Rural Communities through Arts and
Creativity: A Literature Review, Vancouver: Creative City Network of Canada.
Duxbury, N., Cullen, C., Pascual, J. (2012) “Cities, Culture and Sustainable Development.” In H.K.
Anheier, Y.R. Isar & M. Hoelscher (Eds.) Cities, cultural policy and governance. London: Sage,
73–86.
Duxbury, N., Gillette, E. (2007) Culture as a Key Dimension of Sustainability: Exploring Concepts,
Themes, and Models. Working Paper No. 1. Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities, 1 – 1.
Duxbury, N., Hosagrahar, J., and Pascual, P. (2016), “Why must culture be at the heart of sustainable
urban development?”, Agenda 21 for culture, Barcelona: United Cities and Local Governments.
Duxbury, N., Jeannotte, M.S. (2012) “Including culture in sustainability: An assessment of Canada’s
integrated community sustainability plans.” International Journal of Urban Sustainable
Development, 4(1), 1‑19.
Duxbury, N., Jeannotte, M.S. (2011) “Introduction: culture and sustainable communities.” in: N.
Duxbury and M.S. Jeannotte (eds.) Culture and Local Governance / Culture et gouvernance locale,
3(1-2), 1-10.
Duxbury, N., Jeannotte, M.S. (2010) “From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability
planning.” Proceedings of the 3rd ESA Sociology of Culture Research Network Mid-term
Conference, ‘Culture and the Making of Worlds’, Milan.
Eacott, S. (2018) “The Relational Turn in Social Sciences.” in: Beyond Leadership a Relational
Approach to Organizational Theory in Education. Singapore: Springer, 25–42.
Eagleton, T. (2000) The idea of culture. Blackwell manifestos. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eckhardt, F., Elander, I. (2011) Urban Governance in Europe. BWV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag
GmbH.
ECORYS (2013) Interim evaluation of the Culture Programme 2007–2013. Final Report for the
European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture.
Edensor, T. (2001) “Performing tourism, staging tourism: (Re) producing tourist space and practice.”
Tourist studies, 1(1), 59–81.
Edensor, T. (2000) “Staging tourism: Tourists as performers.” Annals of tourism Research, 27(2),
322–344.
Edensor, T. (1998) Tourists at the Taj: performance and meaning at a symbolic site London:
Routledge.
Edwards, T. (2007) Cultural theory: Classical and contemporary positions. Sage.
227
EEA (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe – The ignored challenge. European Environmental Agency
Report 10/2006. Copenhagen
Emirbayer, M. (1997) “Manifesto for a relational sociology”. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2),
281–317.
Emirbayer, M., Mische, A. (1998) “What is agency?” American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–
1023.
Esher, L. (1969) Esher’s York: A Study in Conservation [summary of Esher’s Report]. Yorkshire:
Evening Press.
Esher, L. (1968) York: A Study in Conservation. Report to the Minister of Housing and Local
Government and York City Council. London: HMSO.
Europa Nostra (2008) Annual Report 2008. European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage / Europa
Nostra Awards 2008.
Evans, G. (2011) “Cities of Culture and the Regeneration Game.” London Journal of Tourism, Sport
and Creative Industries, 6, 5–18.
Evans, G. (2005) “Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to
regeneration.” Urban Studies 42(5-6), 959–983.
Evans, G. (2003) “Hard-branding the cultural city - From Prado to Prada.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 417–440.
Evans, G. (2001) Cultural planning, an urban renaissance? London: Routledge.
Evans, G., Foord, J. (2008) “Cultural mapping and sustainable communities: planning for the arts
revisited.” Cultural Trends, 17(2), 65–96.
Evans, G., Shaw, P. (2004) The contribution of culture to regeneration in the UK: a review of
evidence. Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London.
Ernst & Young (2014) Creating growth; Measuring cultural and creative markets in the EU. London:
EYGM.
Faludi, A. (2004) “The European spatial development perspective and North-West Europe: application
and the future.” European Planning Studies, 12(3), 391–408.
Faria, T. (2009) “Óbidos e a formação de um hub criativo.” Europa Novas Fronteiras: Os desafios da
criatividade e inovação. Centro Informação Europeu Jacques Delors nº 24/25, 71–76.
Farinós Dasí, J., et al. (2006) Governance of territorial and urban policies from EU to local level.
Annex report D: multi-level/vertical dimension of territorial governance. No. ESPON project 2.3.2.
Luxemburg: ESPON Monitoring Committee.
Fawcett, B. (2013) “A Plan for the City of York (1948).” York Historian, 30.
Featherstone, M. (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
Ferrão, J. M. (2011) O ordenamento do território como política pública. Manuais universitários.
Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Ferreira de Almeida, J. (1994) “Metodologia da pesquisa empírica.” in: J. Ferreira de Almeida (ed.),
Introdução à Sociologia. Universidade Aberta, Lisboa, 193–199.
Ferreira, N. da S. (2011) Turismo: uma oportunidade para Óbidos. Dissertação de Mestrado.
Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias. Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas
Ferrera, M. (1996) “The’Southern model’of welfare in social Europe.” Journal European Social
Policy 6(1), 17–37.
228
Fischer, F. (2006) “Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of
discursive space”. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19–40.
Flew, T. (2009) “The cultural economy moment?” Cultural Science Journal, 2(1). Available from:
http://www.cultural-science.org/journal/index.php/culturalscience/article/view/28/55
Flew, T. (2002) “Beyond ad hocery: defining creative industries”. Paper presented to Cultural Sites,
Cultural Theory, Cultural Policy, The Second International Conference on Cultural Policy
Research, 23-26 January 2002, Wellington, New Zealand. Available from:
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/256/1/Flew_beyond.pdf
Flew, T., Cunningham, S. (2010) “Creative Industries after the First Decade of Debate.” The
Information Society, 26(2), 113-123.
Florida, R. (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. Psychology Press.
Florida, R. (2003) “Cities and the Creative Class.” City & Community, 2(1), 3–19.
Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, life, community and
everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R., Mellander, C., Stolarick, K. (2008) “Inside the black box of regional development-human
capital, the creative class and tolerance.” Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 615–649.
Florida, R., Tinagli, I. (2004) Europe in the Creative Age. Final report to the Software Industry Center
at Carnegie Mellon, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and DEMOS.
Florida, R.L. (2000) Competing in the age of talent: environment, amenities and the new economy.
Final report to the Richard King Mellon Foundation and Sustainable Pittsburgh.
Foley, M., McGillivray, D., McPherson, G. (2012) Event policy: from theory to strategy. Oxford:
Routledge.
Foray, D. (2015) Smart specialisation: opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy.
London: Routledge.
Foray, D. (2009) Understanding smart specialisation. The Question of R&D Specialisation, JRC,
Directoral General for Research, Brussels: European Commission, 19–28.
Foray, D., David, P.A., Hall, B.H. (2011) Smart specialisation from academic idea to political
instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation.
Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship Institute Working Paper. Lausanne: EPFL.
Foray, D., David, P.A., Hall, B.H. (2009) “Smart specialisation: The concept.” Knowledge
Economists Policy Brief no. 9, June 2009. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-inresearch/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf?11111.
Foray, D., et al. (2012) Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS
3). Luxembourg: Publ. Office of the European Union.
Frenken, K., et al. (2005) Variety and Regional Economic Growth in the Netherlands. Available from:
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=871804 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.871804
Friedman, J. (1994) Cultural identity and global process. Sage.
Friedmann, J. (1986) “The world city hypothesis.” Development and Change, 17(1), 69–83.
Friedmann, J., Weaver, C. (1978) Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional Planning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Friedmann, J., Wolff, G. (1982) “World city formation: an agenda for research and action.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6(3), 309–44.
229
Galloway, S., Dunlop, S. (2007) “A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in
public policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(1), 17–31.
Galloway, S., Dunlop, S. (2006) “Deconstructing the concept of ‘Creative Industries’.” in C.
Eisenberg, R. Gerlach and C. Handke (eds.). Cultural Industries: The British Experience in
International Perspective. Humboldt Univ. Berlin, Edoc-Server, 33–52. Available from:
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de.
García, B. (2005) “Deconstructing the city of culture: The long-term cultural legacies of Glasgow
1990.” Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 841–868.
García, B. (2004) “Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: lessons from
experience, prospects for the future.” Local Economy 19(4), 312–326.
García Canclini, N. (2005) Hybrid cultures: strategies for entering and leaving modernity.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Garcia, J.L., et al. (2016) “Mapping cultural policy in Portugal: From incentives to crisis.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–17.
Garcia, L. de F., Caetano, M. (2007) Óbidos Guia do visitante (1st edition 1929). Alêtheia Editores and
Câmara Municipal de Óbidos.
Garcia, L.M. (2001) Óbidos: 20 anos de intervenção autárquica: 1980-2000. Câmara Municipal de
Óbidos.
Garnham, N. (2005) “From cultural to creative industries: An analysis of the implications of the
“creative industries” approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 15–29.
Garnham, N. (1990) Capitalism and communication: global culture and the economics of information.
Sage.
Garnham, N. (1987) “Concepts of culture: public policy and the cultural industries.” Cultural studies,
1(1), 23–37.
Gattinger, M., Saint-Pierre, D. (2008) “Can national cultural policy approaches be used for subnational comparisons? An analysis of the Québec and Ontario experiences in Canada.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(3), 335–354.
George, A.L., Bennett, A. (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Mit
Press.
Gerring, J. (2007) Case study research: principles and practices. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Getimis, P. (2012) “Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe. The Need
for a Multi-Scalar Approach.” Planning Practice & Research, 27(1), 25–40.
Getz, D. (2010) “The nature and scope of festival studies.” International Journal of Event
Management Research, 5(1), 1–47.
Getz, D. (1991) Festival events and tourism. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.
Ghilardi, L. (2001) “Cultural planning and cultural diversity”, in: T. Bennett (ed.) Differing
Diversities: Cultural Policy and Cultural Diversity. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ., 123–134.
Gibson, L. (2008) “In defence of instrumentality.” Cultural Trends, 17(4), 247–257.
Gibson, L. (2004) “Cultural planning and the creative tropical city.” Creative Tropical City, 2–3.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
230
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: Univ of California Press.
Giffinger, R., et al. (2007) “City-ranking of European medium-sized cities.” Available from:
http://www.smartcity-ranking.eu/download/city_ranking_final.pdf.
Gill, R., Pratt, A. (2008) “In the Social Factory? Immaterial Labour, Precariousness and Cultural
Work.” Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8), 1–30.
Ginsburgh, V.A., Throsby, D. (2006) Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture. Elsevier.
Glaeser, E.L. (ed.) (2010) Agglomeration economics. National Bureau of Economic Research
Conference Report. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Glaeser, E.L. (2001) “The formation of social capital.” Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1),
34–40.
Glaeser, E.L., Kolko, J., Saiz, A. (2001) “Consumer city.” Journal of Economic Geography, 1(1), 27–
50.
Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D., Sacerdote, B. (2002) “An economic approach to social capital.” The
Economic Journal, 112, F437–F458.
Glaeser, E.L., Saiz, A. (2004) The rise of the skilled city. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban
Affairs, 5, 47-94.
Glow, H., Johanson, K. (2008) “Looking for cultural value: Critiques of Australian cultural policy.”
Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management, 4(2), 259-269.
Goddard, J., et al. (2006) The Jyväskylä Region of Finland. Peer Review Report. Supporting the
Contribution of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Development. OECD. Available from:
https://www.oecd.org/finland/36809119.pdf
Göddecke-Stellmann, J., et al. (2011) Metropolitan areas in Europe. BBSR-Online-Publikation n.
01/2011. Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development
(BBSR) within the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR) Available from:
http://www.espon-usespon.eu/dane/web_usespon_library_files/1200/de_metroareaeu_2011.pdf
Godinho, A (2012) “School closures and community revitalisation: the case of Óbidos, Portugal.”
Centre for Effective Learning Environments (CELE) Exchange, OECD.
Godinho, A., et al. (2011) Escola Municipal de Óbidos: Um Ensaio para o Futuro. Óbidos: Várzea da
Rainha Impressões.
Gold, J.R. (2004) “York: a suitable case for conservation.” Architecture, 7, 87–99.
Goldsmith, M., Larsen, H. (2004) “Local political leadership: Nordic style.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 121–133.
Gomes, R.T., Martinho, T.D. (2012) Country Profile Portugal. Compendium of Cultural Policies and
Trends in Europe” 13th edition. Council of Europe/ERICarts.
Gordon, C., Mundy, S. (eds.) (2001) European perspectives on cultural policy. Culture, development
and society series. Paris: UNESCO.
Gordon, J.C., Beilby-Orrin, H. (2007) International measurement of the economic and social
importance of culture. Statistics Directorate, Paris: OECD.
Goulet, D. (2003) “Classic Theories of Development: A Comparative Analysis”, in: M.P. Todaro and
S.C. Smith, (eds.), Economic Development. 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Govers, R., Go, F.M. (2009) Place branding: glocal, virtual and physical identities, constructed,
imagined and experienced. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
231
Graham, S., Healey, P. (1999) “Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and
practice.” European Planning Studies, 7(5), 623–646.
Graham, S., Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological
mobilities and the urban condition. Psychology Press.
Graves, P.E. (1976) “A reexamination of migration, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.”
Journal of Regional Science, 16(1), 107–112.
Gray, C. (2010) “Analysing cultural policy: incorrigibly plural or ontologically incompatible?”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(2), 215–230.
Gray, C. (2009) Managing cultural policy: pitfalls and prospects.” Public administration, 87(3), 574585.
Gray, C. (2007) “Commodification and Instrumentality in Cultural Policy.” International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 13(2), 203–215.
Gray, C. (2006) “Managing the unmanageable: The politics of cultural planning.” Public Policy
Administration, 21(2), 101-113.
Green, N. (2007) “Functional Polycentricity: A Formal Definition in Terms of Social Network
Analysis.” Urban Studies, 44(11), 2077–2103.
Greffe, X. (2002) Arts et artistes au miroir de l’économie. Unesco, Paris.
Griffiths, R. (1995) “Cultural strategies and new modes of urban intervention.” City and Culture:
Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability, 12, 253–265.
Grodach, C., Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2007) “Cultural Development Strategies and Urban
Revitalization.” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(4), 349–370.
Grodach, C., Silver, D. (2012) The politics of urban cultural policy: Global perspectives. Routledge.
Guderjan, M. (2012) “Local Government and European Integration—Beyond Europeanisation.”
Political Perspectives, 6(1), 105–128.
Guidoum, Y. (2010) “Jyväskylä. Successfully rebuilding an economic model, with severe economic
crisis as the starting point” in: Y. Guidoum, J. Huxley, J. Koutsomarkou and P. Soto (2010)
URBACT cities facing the crisis: impact and responses. Paris: URBACT, 35–39. Available from:
http://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/import/general_library/Crise_urbact__16-11_web.pdf
Gursoy, D., Kim, K., Uysal, M. (2004) “Perceived impacts of festivals and special events by
organizers: an extension and validation.” Tourism Management, 25(2), 171–181.
Hadley, S., Gray, C. (2017) “Hyperinstrumentalism and cultural policy: means to an end or an end to
meaning?” Cultural Trends, 26(2), 95–106.
Hajer, M. (2003) “A frame in the fields: policymaking and the reinvention of politics.” in: M. Hajer,
and H. Wagennar (eds.) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88–110.
Hajer, M.A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy
process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Halinen, I. (2002) Jyväskylä Architectural Policy. The City of Jyväskylä’s Architectural Policy
Programme. Approved by Jyväskylä City Council on 17.06.2002. Available from:
http://www3.jkl.fi/kaavoitus/pdf/arkengl2.pdf
Hall, P. (2000) “Creative Cities and Economic Development.” Urban Studies, 37(4), 639–649.
Hall, P. (1988) Cities of tomorrow. An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the
twentieth century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
232
Hall, S. (1997a) “The centrality of culture: notes on the cultural revolutions of our time.” in: K.
Thompson and Open University (eds.) Media and Cultural Regulation. London: Sage/Open
University, 207–238.
Hall, S. (1997b) Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage/
Open University.
Hall, S. (1992) “The Question of Cultural Identity” in: S. Hall, D. Held, and T. McGrew (eds.),
Modernity and Its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press/the Open University, 274–316.
Hall, T., Barrett, H. (2012) Urban geography. Routledge.
Hämäläinen, T., Ruuska, J. (2010) Living Lab - a Real Life Quadruple Helix? Case: Lutakko Living
Lab, Jyväskylä. Case Study. [online]. Available from:
Http://www.cliqproject.eu/en/activities/case_studies/?id=39
Hansen, H., Winther, L. (2010) “Amenities and urban and regional development: critique of a new
growth paradigm.” in: RSA Annual International Conference, Regional Responses and Global
Shifts: Actors, Institutions and Organisations. 24–26.
Harrison, L.E., Huntington, S.P. (2000) Culture matters: How values shape human progress. Basic
books.
Hartley, J. (2005) Creative industries. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2005) A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University.
Harvey, D. (1989a) “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban
Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17.
Harvey, D. (1989b) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Haughton, G., et al. (eds.) (2010) The new spatial planning: territorial management with soft spaces
and fuzzy boundaries. Oxford: Routledge.
Hautamäki, A., Oksanen, K. (2015) “Sustainable Innovation: Competitive Advantage for Knowledge
Hubs.” in: P. Lappalainen, M. Markkula and H. Kune (eds.), Orchestrating Regional Innovation
Ecosystems: Espoo Innovation Garden. Aalto University/Laurea University of Applied
Sciences/Built Environment Innovations RYM Ltd, 87–102.
Hawkes, J. (2001) The fourth pillar of sustainability: culture’s essential role in public planning.
Melbourne, Vic: Cultural Development Network.
Healey, P. (2007) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our
times. The RTPI library series. Oxford: Routledge.
Healey, P. (2006) “Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning.”
European Planning Studies,14(4), 525–546.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Healey, P. (1991) “Models of the development process: a review.” Journal of Property Research, 8(3),
219–238.
Healey, P., Barrett, S. M. (1990) “Structure and agency in land and property development processes:
some ideas for research.” Urban Studies, 27(1), 89–103.
Heikkinen, M. (2003) “The Nordic model for supporting artists: public support for artists in Denmark,
Finland, Norway and Sweden.” Research Reports of the Arts Council of Finland, n. 26. Helsinki:
Arts Council of Finland in cooperation with the Nordic Cultural Institute.
233
Henriques, E.B. (2002) “Novos desafios e orientações das políticas culturais: tendências nas
democracias desenvolvidas e especificidades do caso português.” Finisterra, 37(73), 61–80.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2010) “User-generated content, free labour and the cultural industries.” Ephemera,
10(3/4), 267–284.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005) “Media and cultural policy as public policy: The case of the British Labour
government.” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 95–109.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002) The Cultural Industries: An Introduction. London: Sage.
Hesmondhalgh, D., Baker, S. (2010) “A very complicated version of freedom: Conditions and
experiences of creative labour in three cultural industries.” Poetics, 38(1), 4–20.
Hesmondhalgh, D., Pratt, A.C. (2005) “Cultural industries and cultural policy.” International Journal
of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 1–13.
HESPI, EUKN (2015) Challenges of Small and Medium - Sized Urban Areas (SMUAs), their
economic growth potential and impact on territorial development in the European Union and
Latvia Research report to support the Latvian EU Presidency 2015. Available from:
http://www.eukn.eu/fileadmin/Files/EUKN_Documents/2._Final_Report_26.05.pdf
Hewison, R. (2006) Not a sideshow: leadership and cultural value: a matrix for change. London:
DEMOS.
Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline. Methuen: London.
Higgs, P., Cunningham, S. (2008) “Creative Industries Mapping: Where have we come from and
where are we going?” Creative Industries Journal, 1(1), 7–30.
Hirt, S. (2008) “Landscapes of Postmodernity: Changes in the Built Fabric of Belgrade and Sofia
Since the End of Socialism.” Urban Geography, 29(8), 785–810.
Hirt, S.A. (2005) “Planning the post-communist city: Experiences from Sofia.” International Planning
Studies, 10(3-4), 219–240.
Hjalager, A.-M., et al. (2011) Innovating and re-branding Nordic wellbeing tourism. Final report from
a joint NICe research project. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre.
Hladík, J., Kopecky, V. (2013) “Public administration reform in the Czech Republic.” Research Paper,
Association for International Affairs. [online] Available from: https://www.amo.cz/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/amocz-RP-2013-3.pdf
Hodson, D., Maher, I. (2001) “The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft
Economic Policy Co-ordination.” Journal of Common Market Studies: 39(4), 719–746.
Holden, J. (2015a). The ecology of culture. A Report commissioned by the Arts and Humanities
Research Council's Cultural Value Project. Art's and Humanities Research Council.
Holden, J. (2015b) “Valorizando as artes e a cultura.” in: P. Costa (ed.) Políticas Culturais Para o
Desenvolvimento. Conferência ARTEMREDE. Almada, 39–54.
Holden, J. (2006) Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy: why culture needs a democratic
mandate. London: DEMOS.
Holden, J. (2004) Capturing cultural value: How culture has become a tool of government policy.
London: DEMOS.
Holden, J., Baltà, J. (2012) “The Public Value of Culture: A Literature Review.” European Expert
Network on Culture (EENC). Available from: www.eenc.info/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/JHolden-JBalta-publicvalue-literature-review-final.pdf.
234
Holmström, B., Korkman, S., Pohjola, M. (2014) The nature of Finland’s economic crisis and the
prerequisites for growth (Government memorandum) Available from:
http://vnk.fi/documents/10616/339615/The+nature+of+Finland%E2%80%99s+economic+crisis+an
d+the+prerequisites+for+growth+-memorandum/07f3b69a-25cb-4347-a713-b0f91c23a931.
House of Commons (2011) Funding of the Arts and Heritage. Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Available from:
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcumeds/464/46405.htm.
Howkins, J. (2001) The creative economy, or, how some people profit from ideas, some don’t, and the
effect on all of us. London: Allen Lane.
Hubbard, P., Bartley, B., Fuller, D., Kitchin, R. (2002) Thinking geographically: Space, theory and
contemporary human geography. London: Continuum.
Huet, A., et al. (1978) Capitalisme et industries culturelles. Grenoble: Presses Univ. de Grenoble.
Iammarino, S., McCann, P. (2013) Multinationals and economic geography: location, technology and
innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
ICAEW (2015) Creative industries – routes to finance [online]. Available from:
http://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/media/322389/creative-industries-routes-to-finance.pdf
IFACCA, Culture 21, FICCD, Culture Action Europe (2013) Culture as a Goal in the Post-2015
Development Agenda. Available from:
http://www.racines.ma/sites/default/files/Culture%20as%20a%20goal%20.pdf
Ilmonen, Kari (2009) “Culture as an element in regional development.” in: Luoto, Ilkka & Olli
Rosenqvist (eds.) Perspectives on cultural rural. Rurality as a cultural product – Pre-conference
symposium in Kokkola, Finland, 16th–17th of August 2009, organized with the cooperation of the
XXIII ESRS congress in Vaasa, Finland, 17th–21st August 22–23.
imec-SMIT-VUB, KEA, IDEA Consult (2017) Mapping the Creative Value Chains. DirectorateGeneral for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Education, Youth, Sport and Culture.
IMF (2015) Finland - Concluding Statement for the 2015 Article IV Consultation [online]. Available
from: http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2015/091515.htm
INTELI (2011) Creative-Based Strategies in Small and Medium-Sized Cities: Guidelines for Local
Authorities. Action Plan of the Creative Clusters in Low Density Urban Areas project, URBACT II
Programme. INTELI.
Ipenburg, D., Lambregts, B.W. (2001) Polynuclear urban regions in North West Europe: a survey of
key actor views, Report n. 1 of EURBANET. Delft: DUP Science.
Jacobs, J. (1969) The economy of cities. New York: Random House.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Jakab, M., Bedrich, V. (2009) The story of the town of Ceský Krumlov. The Town of Ceský Krumlov,
Ceský Krumlov.
Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.
Jan Sucháček (2008) “Territorial Administration in the Czech Republic: Re-Centralization in the
Transition Period.” Presented at the 48 th Congress of the European Regional Science Association.
Janoski, T., et al. (2005) The handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies, and globalization.
Cambridge University Press.
Jessop, B. (2013) “Recovered imaginaries, imagined recoveries: A cultural political economy of crisis
construals and crisis-management in the North Atlantic Financial Crisis.” in: M. Benner (ed.),
235
Beyond the global economic crisis: Economics and politics for a post-crisis settlement. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Jessop, B. (2010) “Cultural political economy and critical policy studies.” Critical Policy Studies, 3(34), 336–356
Jessop, B. (2002). “Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical
Perspective.” Antipode 34(3), 452–472.
Jessop, B. (1992). “Fordism and Post-Fordism: a critical reformulation.” in: A.J. Scott and M.J.
Storper (eds.) Pathways to Regionalism and Industrial Development, London: Routledge, 43-65.
Jessop, B., Oosterlynck, S. (2008) “Cultural political economy: On making the cultural turn without
falling into soft economic sociology.” Geoforum, 39(3), 1155–1169.
Jessop, B., Sum, N.-L. (2010) “Cultural political economy: Logics of discovery, epistemic fallacies,
the complexity of emergence, and the potential of the cultural turn.” New Political Economy, 15(3),
445–451.
Jessop, B., Sum, N.-L. (2006) Beyond the regulation approach: putting capitalist economies in their
place. Edward Elgar.
Jessop, B., Sum, N.-L. (2001) “Pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary perspectives.” New Political
Economy, 6(1), 89–101.
Johannisson, J. (2008) “The geography of cultural policy: regional cultural policy in Sweden.” Paper
presented at The Fifth International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR), Istanbul,
20th-24th August 2008.
Johansson, B., Quigley, J.M. (2004) “Agglomeration and Networks in Spatial Economies.” Papers in
Regional Science, 83(1), 165-176.
Joost Dessein, et al. (eds.) (2015) Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from
the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. Finland; University of Jyväskylä.
Kagan, S. (1998) “Rethinking intrinsic value”. The Journal of Ethics, 2(42), 277–297.
Kanerva, A., Mitchell, R. (2017) Country Profile Finland, Compendium of Cultural Policies and
Trends in Europe, 18th edition. Council of Europe/ERICarts.
Kangas, A., Pirnes, E. (2015) “Kulttuuripoliittinen päätöksenteko, lainsäädäntö, hallinto ja rahoitus.”
in I. Heiskanen, A. Kangas, and R. Mitchell (eds.) Taiteen ja kulttuurin kentät. Perusrakenteet,
hallinta, lainsäädäntö ja uudet haasteet, 23–108.
Kantor, P., Savitch, H.V. (2010) “The politics of city regions in comparative perspective.” Pôle Sud,
32(1), 119–136. Available from: https://www.cairn.info/revue-pole-sud-2010-1-page-119.htm.
Kašparová, L., Půček, M. (2009). Cohesion policy: Settlement in the Czech Republic: urban-rural
partnership. Ministry for Regional Development, Regional Policy and Strategy Development
Department; Institute for Spatial Development.
Katunarić, V. (2003) “Decentralisation in South East Europe: objectives, instruments, practices.”
Policies a methodological paper for (comparative) research on cultural policy. Amsterdam:
Policies for Culture/ Bucharest: ECUMEST Association.
Kaufmann, F.-X., Majone, G., Ostrom, V. (eds.) (1986) Guidance, control, and evaluation in the
public sector: the Bielefeld interdisciplinary project, De Gruyter studies in organisation, Berlin and
New York: W. de Gruyter.
KEA (2009) The impact of culture on creativity. Study prepared for European Comission. Brussels:
KEA European Affairs.
236
KEA (2006) The economy of culture in Europe. Brussels: KEA European Affairs.
KEA European Affairs (2012) Use of structural funds for cultural projects: study. Directorate-General
for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament.
Kearns, G., Philo, C. (1993) “Culture, history, capital: A critical introduction to the selling of places”,
in: G. Kearns and C. Philo (eds.) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1–32.
Keating, M., Frantz, M. de (2003) Culture-led strategies for urban regeneration: a comparative
perspective on Bilbao. International Journal of Iberian Studies, 16(3), 187–194.
Kern, P. (ed.) (2015) Creative SpIN Final Report. Urbact programme (2012-2015). KEA European
Affairs. Available from: http://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/creative_spin_final_report.pdf
Keynes Srl (ed.) (2006) Handbook of regional structures for territorial cooperation. Tuscany Region.
PacInterreg project.
Klaassen, L.H., Molle, W.T.N., Paelinck, J.H.P. (1981) The Dynamics of Urban Development. Gower:
Aldershot.
Klamer, A., Mignosa, A., Petrova, L. (2010) “The relationship between public and private financing of
culture in the EU.” 14th International Conference of ACEI the Association for Cultural Economics
International, Copenhagen.
Klamer, A., Petrova, L., Mignosa, A., Stichting Economie and Cultuur (2006) Financing the Arts and
Culture in the European Union. No. IP/B/CULT/ST/2005_104. Brussels: Policy Department
Structural and Cohesion Policies.
Kleberg, Carl-Johan (2002) “National cultural policy reviews: a method to discuss and improve
cultural policies.” Paper presented at The Second International Conference on Cultural Policy
Research (ICCPR), 23-26 January 2002, Wellington, New Zealand.
Knieling, J., Othengrafen, F. (2009) “Spatial planning and culture–symbiosis for a better
understanding of cultural differences in planning systems, traditions and practices.” In J. Knieling
and F. Othengrafen (Eds.) Planning Cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban
and Regional Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate, xxi–xxxv.
Knight, R. V. (1995) “Knowledge-based development: policy and planning implications for cities.”
Urban Studies, 32(2), 225–260.
Knowlson, L. (2015) Make It York... We’re open and ready for trading. York Press [online]
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/business/news/12961334.Make_It_York____We___re_open_and_read
y_for_trading/.
Knox, P.L. (1996) “Globalisation and urban change.” Urban Geography 17(1), 115–117.
Knox, P.L., Mayer, H. (2009) Small town sustainability: economic, social, and environmental
innovation. Walter de Gruyter.
Knox, P.L., Pinch, S. (2010) Urban social geography: an introduction. 6. ed. Harlow: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Kohler-Koch, B., Eising, R. (eds.) (1999) The transformation of governance in the European Union,
Routledge/ECPR studies in European political science. Routledge.
Kohler-Koch, B., Rittberger, B. (2006) “The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies.” Journal of Common
Market Studies, 44, 27–49.
Kong, L. (2000) “Culture, economy, policy: trends and developments.” Geoforum, 31(4), 385–390.
237
Konu, H., Tuohino, A., Bjork, P. (2011) Wellbeing tourism in Finland. Finland as a competitive
wellbeing tourism destination. Savonlinna: University of Eastern Finland.
Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Kooiman, J. (1993) Modern governance: new government-society interactions. London: Sage.
Krawczyk, P., et al. (2011) “User-Led Mobile Learning Lab” Proceedings of e-Challenges,
Conference in Florence. Italy, October 2011.
Krawczyk, P., Ruuska, J. (2010) “User feedback as a potential source of incremental vs. radical
innovation at Lutakko Living Lab.” Proceedings of 1st Living Lab Summer School. August 24-27.
Krivý, M., Kaminer, T. (2013) “Introduction: The participatory turn in urbanism.” Footprint 7(2), 1–6.
Kroeber, A., Kluckhohn, C. (1952) “Culture; a critical review of concepts and definitions”. Paper of
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, XLVII(1), Harvard University.
Kühn, M., Liebmann, H. (2012) “Urban Regeneration–Strategies of Shrinking Cities in Eastern
Germany.” Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin, 143(1-2), 135–152.
Kumar, K. (1997) “The Post-Modern Condition.” in: A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, A.S. Wells
(eds.) Education: Culture, Economy, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lagendijk, A. (2006) “Learning from conceptual flow in regional studies: Framing present debates,
unbracketing past debates.” Regional Studies, 40(4), 385–399.
Laing, J., Frost, W. (2016) “Religious Events and their Impacts: A New Perspective for Religious
Tourism.” International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 4(2), Article 2.
Landman, T. (2003) Issues and methods in comparative politics: an introduction, 2nd ed. London and
New York: Routledge
Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City: a toolkit for urban innovators. London: Earthscan Publ.
Landry, C. (1996) The art of regeneration: urban renewal through cultural activity. Stroud: Comedia
Landry, C., Bianchini, F. (eds.) (1995) The creative city. London: DEMOS.
Lash, S., Urry, J. (1994) Economies of Signs and Space, London: Sage.
Lavanga, M. (2013) “Artists in urban regeneration processes: use and abuse?” Territoire en
mouvement, 17-18, 6–19.
Lazzarato, M. (2007) “The Misfortunes of the ‘Artistic Critique’ and of Cultural Employment.” in:
Critique of Creativity: Precarity, Subjectivity and Resistance in the ‘Creative Industries.’ Available
from: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0207/lazzarato/en.
Le Galès, P. (1998) “Regulations and governance in European cities.” International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 22(3), 482–506.
Lefebvre, H. (2003) The urban revolution [Originally published in 1970 as La Révolution urbaine Ed.
Gallimard] Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) Critique of Everyday Life. [First published as “Critique de la vie quotidienne”
1947, Paris: Grasset] London and New York: Verso.
Lefebvre, H. (1974) La production de l’espace. Editions Anthropos, Paris. [translated to english The
Production of Space by D. Nicholson-Smith Oxford: Basil Blackwell].
Leitner, H., Peck, J., Sheppard, E.S. (eds.) (2007) Contesting neoliberalism: urban frontiers. New
York: Guilford Press.
Lewis, N. M., Donald, B. (2010) “A New Rubric for ‘Creative City’ Potential in Canada’s Smaller
Cities.” Urban Studies, 47(1), 29–54.
238
LGA (2014) Under pressure - How councils are planning for future cuts. London: Local Government
Association.
Lijphart, A. (1971) “Comparative politics and the comparative method.” American Political Science
Review, 65(3), 682–693.
Lima dos Santos, M. de L. (ed.) (1998) “As políticas culturais em Portugal: relatório nacional;
programa europeu de avaliação das políticas culturais nacionais.” Colecção OBS - pesquisas.
Observatório das Actividades Culturais, Lisboa.
Lima dos Santos, M. de L. (1988) “Questionamento à volta de três noções (a grande cultura, a cultura
popular, a cultura de massas).” Análise Social, 689–702.
Linnamaa, R. (2002) “Development process of the ICT cluster in the Jyväskylä urban region.” Nordic
Perspectives on Process-Based Regional Development Policy. Nordregio report 3, 29–78.
Lipietz, A. (1997) “The post-Fordist world: labour relations, international hierarchy and global
ecology.” Review of International Political Economy, 4(1), 1–41.
Lira, S. (2002) Museums and Temporary Exhibitions as means of propaganda: the Portuguese case
during the Estado Novo. Doctoral thesis. Department of Museum Studies University of Leicester.
Littoz-Monnet, A. (2010) “EU Cultural Policy between Community-building and Market-making:
putting the EU’s Cultural Agenda into Historical Perspective.” Fondation Pierre du Bois. Papiers
d’actualité, 2 March. Available from: http://repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/279330/files/no22010_eu_cultural_policy.pdf
Lönnqvist, H. (2015) “On the effects of urban natural amenities, architectural quality and accessibility
to workplaces on housing prices: an empirical study on the Helsinki metropolitan área.” City of
Helsinki Urban Facts, Research series 2015:5.
Lopes, J. T. (2007) “Políticas culturais públicas: uma proposta para o nosso tempo.” La Sociología y
Los Nuevos Retos = A Socioloxía e Os Novos Retos: IV Congreso Astur-Galaico de Socioloxía, A
Coruña, 23-24 de Marzo de 2007. Servicio de Publicaciones, 71.
Lopes, J. T. (2003) Escola, território e políticas culturais. Porto: Campo das Letras.
Lopes, J. T. (2000) “Em busca de um lugar no mapa: reflexões sobre políticas culturais em cidades de
pequena dimensão.” Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 34, 81–91.
Lorentzen, A. (2009) “Cities in the Experience Economy.” European Planning Studies, 17, 829–845.
Lorentzen, A., Hansen, C. J. (2009) “The Role and Transformation of the City in the Experience
Economy: Identifying and Exploring Research Challenges.” European Planning Studies, 17, 817–
827.
Lorentzen, A., Van Heur, B. (2012) Cultural political economy of small cities. Routledge.
Lourtie, P. (2011) “Portugal no contexto da crise do euro.” Relações Internacionais, 061-105.
Lucas, R. E. (1988) “On the mechanics of economic development.” Journal of Monetary Economics
22(1), 3–42.
Lull, J. (2000) Media, communication, culture: a global approach, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Lyck, L., Long, P., Grige, A.X. (eds.) (2012) Tourism, festivals and cultural events in times of crisis.
Copenhagen: Business School.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. [translated from “La
Condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir”, 1979, Les Editions de Minuit, by G. Bennington and
B. Massumi] Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
239
Macleod, N. (2006) “Cultural Tourism: Aspects of Authenticity and Commodification”. In M. Smith
and M. Robinson (eds.) Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, Participation and
(Re)presentation. Clevedon: Channel View Publications, 177–190.
Madden, C. (2009) “The Independence of Government Arts Funding: A Review.” D'Art Topics in Arts
Policy, 9, Sydney: International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies.
www.ifacca.org/themes.
Madden, C. (2005) “Cross-country comparisons of cultural statistics: Issues and good practice.”
Cultural Trends, 14(4), 299–316.
Mangset, P., Kangas, A., Skot-Hansen, D., Vestheim, G. (2008) “Nordic cultural policy.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(1), 1–5.
Manninen, K. (2009) Soft Landing Services - Jyväskylä Innovation Ltd. Presented at the Global
Nanotechnology Business Incubator Workshop, Jyväskylä University.
Maraña, M. (2010) Culture and Development – Evolution and Prospects. Bilbao, Spain: UNESCO.
Markusen, A. (2013) “How cities can nurture cultural entrepreneurs?” Policy brief for the Ewing
Marion Kaufmann Foundation, presented at the Mayors Conference on Entrepreneurship. Kansas
City, Mo., November 20th.
Markusen, A. (2010) “Organizational complexity in the regional cultural economy.” Regional Studies,
44(7), 813–828.
Markusen, A. (2006) “Urban development and the politics of a creative class: evidence from a study of
artists.” Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1921–1940.
Markusen, A. (2004) “Targeting occupations in regional and community economic development.”
Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 253–268.
Markusen, A., Gadwa, A. (2010) Creative placemaking. Washington, DC: National Endowment for
the Arts.
Markusen, A., King, D. (2003) “The artistic dividend: the hidden contributions of the arts to the
regional economy.” Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs, University of Minnesota.
Marling, G., Jensen, O.B., Kiib, H. (2009) “The Experience City: Planning of Hybrid Cultural
Projects.” European Planning Studies, 17(6), 863–885.
Marques, A.M. da S. (2012) As empresas municipais: um contributo para a caraterização da sua
posição financeira. Dissertação de Mestrado. Instituto Politécnico do Porto. Escola Superior de
Estudos Industriais e de Gestão.
Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of economics, 8th ed. [first pub. 1890]. London: Macmillan.
Martin, D., McCann, E., Purcell, M. (2003) “Space, scale, governance, and representation:
contemporary geographical perspectives on urban politics and policy.” Journal of Urban Affairs,
25(2), 113–121.
Martin, D., Miller, B. (2003) “Space and contentious politics.” Mobilization: An International
Quarterly, 8(2), 143–156.
Martin, R. (2015) “Rebalancing the Spatial Economy: The Challenge for Regional Theory.” Territory,
Politics, Governance, 3(3) 1–38.
Martin, R.L. (2003) “A Study on the Factors of Regional Competitiveness.” A draft final report for
The European Commission Directorate-General Regional Policy, Cambridge: Univ. of Cambridge.
240
Masciulli, J., Molchanov, M.A., Knight, W. A. (2009) “Political leadership in context.” in J. Masciulli,
M.A. Molchanov and W.A. Knight (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to Political
Leadership, Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 3–27.
Matarasso, F., Landry, C. (1999) “Balancing act: twenty-one strategic dilemmas in cultural policy.”
Cultural Policies Research and Development Unit, Policy Note No. 4. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Publ.
Mateus, A. (2010) O Sector Cultural e Criativo em Portugal. Estudo para o Ministério da Cultura –
GPEARI. Relatório Final. Lisboa: Augusto Mateus & Associados – Sociedade de Consultores.
Mathur, V.K., Stein, S.H. (2005) “Do amenities matter in attracting knowledge workers for regional
economic development?” Papers in Regional Science, 84(2), 251–269.
Maurel, C. (2006) L’Unesco de 1945 à 1974. Université Panthéon-Sorbonne-Paris I.
Mayer, M. (2006) “Manuel Castells’ the city and the grassroots.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 30(1), 202–206.
McCann, E. (2013) “Policy Boosterism, Policy Mobilities, and the Extrospective City.” Urban
Geography, 34(1), 5–29.
McCann, E. (2011) “Urban Policy Mobilities and Global Circuits of Knowledge: Toward a Research
Agenda.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 107–130.
McCann, E. (2008) “Livable city/unequal city: The politics of policy-making in a «creative»
boomtown.” Revue Interventions économiques. Papers in Political Economy, 37.
McCann, E. (2007) “Inequality and Politics in the Creative City-Region: Questions of Livability and
State Strategy.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), 188–196.
McCann, E. (2002) “The cultural politics of local economic development: meaning-making, placemaking, and the urban policy process.” Geoforum 33(3), 385–398.
McCann, E., Ward, K. (2013) “A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: geographies,
assemblages, mobilities and mutations.” Policy Studies, 34(1), 2–18.
McCann, E., Ward, K. (2012a) “Policy Assemblages, Mobilities and Mutations: Toward a
Multidisciplinary Conversation.” Political Studies Review, 10(3), 325–332.
McCann, E., Ward, K. (2012b) “Assembling urbanism: following policies andstudying through’the
sites and situations of policy making.” Environment and Planning A, 44, 42–51.
McCann, P., Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015) “Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to
European Union Cohesion Policy.” Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.
Mccarthy, J. (2006) “Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity?”
Journal of Urban Design, 11(2), 243–262.
McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E.H., Zakaras, L., Brooks, A. (eds.) (2004) Gifts of the muse: reframing the
debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Research in the Arts.
Mccartney, G., Osti, L. (2007) “From Cultural Events to Sport Events: A Case Study of Cultural
Authenticity in the Dragon Boat Races.” Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(1), 25–40.
McGranahan, D., & Wojan, T. (2007). “Recasting the creative class to examine growth processes in
rural and urban counties.” Regional studies, 41(2), 197-216.
McGuigan, J. (2005) “Neo-liberalism, culture and policy.” International journal of cultural policy,
11(3), 229–241.
MČKrumlov (2014) Koncepce podpory kultury města Český Krumlov 2014-2020. Město Český
Krumlov.
241
MČKrumlov (2010) Český Krumlov A cultural property included on the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage List of UNESCO. Management Plan for the historic centre of Český Krumlov Phase II:
implementation (execution). Město Český Krumlov.
MČKrumlov (2009) Management Plan for the historic center of Český Krumlov Phase I: document
preparation and introductory analyses. Město Český Krumlov.
MČKrumlov (2008) Strategický plán města Český Krumlov. Město Český Krumlov.
MEC Finland (2017) The State supports arts and culture. Ministry of Education and Culture.
Available from:
http://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/4150031/The+State+supports+arts+and+culture/bb45a82760ba-4c16-8cda-3882fc74fe97
Meethan, K. (1996) “Consuming (in) the civilized city”. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 322–340.
Meijers, E. J. (2007) Synergy in polycentric urban regions: complementarity, organising capacity and
critical mass. Sustainable urban áreas series. Delft: Delft University Press.
Meijers, E. J., Burger, M. J., Hoogerbrugge, M. M. (2016a) “Borrowing size in networks of cities:
City size, network connectivity and metropolitan functions in Europe.” Papers in Regional Science,
95(1), 181–198.
Melo, A. (1994) Arte e Dinheiro. Lisboa: Difusão Cultural.
Menger, P.-M. (2013) “European cultural policies and the ‘creative industries’ turn.” in: K. Thomas
and J. Chan (eds.), Handbook of Research on Creativity. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Menger, P.-M. (2010) “Cultural policies in Europe. From a state to a city-centered perspective on
cultural generativity.” GRIPS Discussion Papers. Report no.10-28. Available from:
http://www3.grips.ac.jp/~pinc/data/10-28.pdf.
Menger, P.-M. (2005) Profession artiste. Extension du domaine de la création. Paris: Textuel.
Mercer, C. (2006) Cultural planning for urban development and creative cities. Unpublished
manuscript. Available from: http://www. culturalplanningoresund.net/PDF_activities/maj06/Shanghai_cultural_planning_paper. pdf.
Merloni, F. (ed.) (2016) Regionalisation trends in European countries 2007 – 2015. A study by
members of the Group of Independent Experts of the European Charter of Local Self-Government,
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. Available from:
https://rm.coe.int/168071aa29.
MF ČR (2015) “Český Krumlov.” Portal Monitor of the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic
[online]. Available from: http://monitor.mfcr.cz/en/2016/obce/detail/00245836?hodnoty=obyv
Middleton, C., Freestone, P. (2008) “The impact of culture-led regeneration on regional identity in
north east England.” in: L. Malikova and M. Sirak (eds.) Regional and Urban Regeneration in
European Peripheries: What Role for Culture? Bratislava: Institute of Public Policy, 51–58.
Miège, B., et al. (1984) Capitalisme et industries culturelles. Grenoble: PUG, 1984.
Miles, M. (2007) Cities and cultures. Routledge critical introductions to urbanism and the city.
London and New York: Routledge.
Miles, S. (2005) “Our Tyne”: Iconic Regeneration and the Revitalisation of Identity in
NewcastleGateshead. Urban Studies, 42(5-6), 913–926.
Miles, S., Paddison, R. (2005) “Introduction: The rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration.”
Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 833-839.
242
Mill, J.S. (1843) A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: being a connected view of the
principles of evidence, and methods of scientific investigation. London: J. W. Parker.
Mills, C.W. (1959) The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mills, M.C. (2008) “Comparative Research.” in: L.M. Given (ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of
Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 100–103.
Mitchell, R. (2002) “Cultural Policy Evaluation as a Means of a Schemata Construction and as a
Policy Instrument.” The Second International Conference on Cultural Policy Research. 23-26
January 2002, Wellington, New Zealand.
Mitchell, R. and I. Heiskanen. 2011. Country Profile: Finland. Compendium of Cultural Policies and
Trends in Europe, 13th edition.
Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development (2007) National Strategic
Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013, CSF III Observatory. Available from:
http://www.qren.pt/np4/file/1354/2_NSRF_National_Strategic_Reference_Fram.pdf
MK ČR (2015) State Cultural Policy for 2015–2020 (with outlook up to 2025). Adopted by the
Government of the Czech Republic by Resolution No. 393 of 15 April 2015.
MK ČR (2009) National cultural policy from 2009 - 2014. Agreed by the governmental decree no.
1452 on November 19, 2008. Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. Prague.
Mokre, M. (2006) “European Cultural Policies and European Democracy” [online]. Available from:
http://eipcp.net/policies/dpie/mokre/en.
Mommaas, H. (2004) “Cultural Clusters and the Post-industrial City: Towards the Remapping of
Urban Cultural Policy.” Urban Studies, 41(3), 507–532.
Monteiro, P. V., Noronha, T. de, Neto, P. (2011) The importance of clusters for sustainable innovation
processes: the context of small and medium sized regions. CEFAGE-UE Working Paper 2011/24
Available from:
http://www.cefage.uevora.pt/en/producao_cientifica/working_papers_serie_cefage_ue/the_importan
ce_of_clusters_for_sustainable_innovation_processes_the_context_of_small_and_medium_sized_r
egions
Montgomery, J. (2003) “Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban Regeneration. Part 1:
Conceptualising Cultural Quarters.” Planning Practice & Research, 18(4), 293–306.
Moore, B. (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of
the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.
Moore, M.H. (1995) Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard university
press.
Mordue, T. (2007) “Tourism, Urban Governance and Public Space.” Leisure Studies, 26(4), 447–462.
Moulaert, F., et al. (2007) Social Innovation, governance and community building (SINGOCOM).
Final Report January 2005. Brussels: European Commission.
Moulaert, F., Demuynck, H., Nussbaumer, J. (2004) “Urban renaissance: from physical beautification
to social empowerment.” City, 8(2), 229–235.
Moulaert, F., Sekia, F. (2003) “Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey.” Regional Studies,
37(3), 289–302.
Mouritzen, P.E., Svara, J.H. (2002) Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western
Local Governments. University of Pittsburgh Press.
243
MRD CR (2010) Principles of Urban Policy. Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech
Republic, Prague. Available from: www.mmr.cz/getmedia/f333120b-88d5-4bd8-bec9dd58a26f9812/principles_of_urban_policy.pdf
Mulcahy, K.V. (2006) “Cultural policy.” in: B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds.) Handbook of Public
Policy. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 265–279.
Müller, M. (2015) “What makes an event a mega-event? Definitions and sizes.” Leisure Studies,
34(6), 627–642.
Mulligan, G., Carruthers, J., Cahill, M. (2005) “Urban Quality of Life and Public Policy: A Survey.”
in: R. Capello, P. Nijkamp (eds.), Contributions to Economic Analysis. Emerald Group Publishing,
730–802.
Munoz, P. (2010) “Beyond talent, diversity and technology: transforming small cities into creative
places.” Diversity and Technology: Transforming Small Cities into Creative Places. Working paper
id. 5441976. Newcastle University Business School.
Murray, C., Adams, D., Champion, K. (2007) “Developing creative cities: A perspective from the
UK.” Paper presented at the Hong Kong Creative Cities Conference, April.
Myerscough, J. (1997) European Programme of National Cultural Policy Reviews. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Nadin, V., Stead, D. (2008) “European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning.” DisP
- Planning Review, 44, 35–47.
National Audit Office (2016a) Local Enterprise Partnerships. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor
General. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
National Audit Office (2016b) Overview: Local government. Available from:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Overview-Local-government.pdf
Neff, G., Wissinger, E., Zukin, S. (2005) “Entrepreneurial Labor among Cultural Producers: ‘Cool’
Jobs in ‘Hot’ Industries.” Social Semiotics 15(3), 307–334.
Nemeth, A. (2010) “Mega-events, Their Sustainability and Potential Impact on Spatial Development:
The European Capital of Culture.” International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(4),
265–278.
Nepelski, D., De Prato, G. (2013) “Analysing the European ICT Poles of Excellence. Case studies of
Inner London East, Paris, Kreisfreie Stadt Darmstadt, Dublin and Byen Kobenhavn.” JRC Scientific
and Policy Reports. Seville: JRC-IPTS.
Nielsén, T. (2004) Understanding the experience industry: a Swedish perspective on creativity. QNB
Analys & Kommunikation AB, Sweden.
Nijkamp, P., Poot, J. (1998) “Spatial perspectives on new theories of economic growth.” The annals of
regional science, 32(1), 7–37.
Nijman, J. (2007) “Introduction - Comparative Urbanism.” Urban Geography, 28, 1–6.
Nurse, K. (2006) “Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development.” Small states: economic
review and basic statistics, 11, 28–40.
Nuur, C., Laestadius, S. (2009) “Is The ‘Creative Class’ Necessarily Urban? Putting the creativity
thesis in the context of peripheral regions in industrialized nations.” European Journal of Spatial
Development, 6, 10–22.
Nye, J.S. (2008) “Public diplomacy and soft power.” The annals of the American academy of political
and social science, 616(1), 94–109.
244
Oakley, K. (2009) Art works: culture labour markets: a literature review. London: Creativity, Culture
and Education.
O’Brien, D. (2010) Measuring the value of culture. A report to the Department for Culture Media and
Sport. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77933/measuringthe-value-culture-report.pdf.
O’Brien, K. (2013) “The courage to change, adaptation from the inside out.” in: S.C. Moser and M.T.
Boykoff (eds.), Successful Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking Science and Policy in a Rapidly
Changing World. Routledge.
O’Connor, J. (2007) The cultural and creative industries: a review of the literature: a report for
Creative Partnerships. Creative Partnerships, London: Arts Council England.
O’Connor, J. (2000) “The definition of the ‘cultural industries’.” The European Journal of Arts
Education, 2(3), 15–27.
OECD (2017) “Innovation policy and governance in Finland.” in: OECD Reviews of Innovation
Policy: Finland 2017. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2010a) Regional development policies in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2010b) Finland: working together to sustain success. OECD public governance reviews.
Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009) How regions grow: trends and analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2003) Managing decentralisation: a new role for labour market policy, Local Economic and
Employment Development (LEED) Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001a) Best Practices in Local Development. Local Economic and Employment Development
(LEED). Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001b) OECD Territorial Outlook. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. Paris: OECD.
Oinas, P. (2005) “Finland: a success story?” European Planning Studies, 13(8), 1227–1244.
ÖIR (2006) The Role of Small and Medium-sized Towns (SMESTO). ESPON 1.4.1. Final Report.
Vienna: European Spatial Planning Observation Network.
Oksanen, K., Hautamäki, A. (2014) “Transforming regions into innovation ecosystems: A model for
renewing local industrial structures.” The Innovation Journal 19(2), 1–16.
O’Neill, J. (1992) “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value”, The Monist, 75(2), April, 119–137.
Onsager, K., et al. (2010). City Regions, Advantages and Innovation. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for
Urban and Regional Research.
Othengrafen, F. (2012) Uncovering the Unconscious Dimensions of Planning. Using Culture as a Tool
to Analyse Spatial Planning Practice. Farnham: Ashgate
Othengrafen, F., Reimer, M. (2013) “The embeddedness of planning in cultural contexts: theoretical
foundations for the analysis of dynamic planning cultures.” Environment and Planning A, 45(6),
1269–1284.
Oxford Economics (2015) York Economic Forecasts. Briefing note. May. [online] Available from:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s99832/Annex%201%20City%20of%20York%20Econom
ic%20Forecasts.pdf.
245
Pallot, M., Krawczyk, P., Kivilehto, A. (2013) “User centred open innovation domain landscape
within the European network of living labs.” ISPIM Conference Proceedings. The International
Society for Professional Innovation Management.
Pardal, S.B. (2012) Repensar o Turismo e o Território no Oeste: Os Impactos da Crise EconómicoFinanceira. Dissertação de Mestrado. Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade
Nova de Lisboa.
Park, R.E. (1936) “Human ecology.” American Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 1–15.
Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W. (1925) The City. University of Chicago Press.
Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W. (1921) Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press.
Parkinson, M. (2005) “Urban Policy in Europe – Where have we been and where are we going?” in: E.
Anatalovsky, J. Dangschat and M. Parkinson (eds.) European Metropolitan Governance. Cities in
Europe-Europe in the Cities, Vienna: Node Research.
Patuleia, M. (2011) O turismo residencial e os resorts integrados no pólo de desenvolvimento turístico
do Oeste: estratégias de desenvolvimento. Revista dos Algarves. Faro: ESGHT/UALG
Peck, J. (2005) “Struggling with the creative class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 29(4), 740–770.
Peck, J., Theodore, N., Brenner, N. (2009) “Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations.” SAIS
Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 49–66.
Peck, J., Tickell, A. (2002) “Neoliberalizing space”. Antipode 34(3), 380–404.
Pedaliu, E. (2010) The Making of Southern Europe: An Historical Overview. The Washington Post, 28
February. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Effie_Pedaliu/publication/299430586_The_Making_of_South
ern_Europe_An_Historical_Overview/links/56f66d9708ae7c1fda2fd101.pdf
Pedreirinho, H.C.M. da S. (2013) A defesa do património imóvel histórico-artístico no Estado Novo: a
contribuição da legislação para a definição de uma política patrimonial. Dissertação de
Doutoramento. Lisboa: Universidade Lusíada da Lisboa.
Petrov, A.N. (2007) “A look beyond metropolis: exploring creative class in the Canadian periphery.”
Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 30(3), 451–474.
Petrová, P. (2015) Country Profile Czech Republic, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in
Europe, 17th edition 2016. Council of Europe/ERICarts.
Piccaluga, A., Cooke, P. (ed.) (2007) Regional Development in the Knowledge Economy. London:
Routledge.
Pierre, J. (2005) “Comparative Urban Governance: Uncovering Complex Causalities.” Urban Affairs
Review 40(4), 446–462.
Pierre, J. (2000) Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford.
University Press.
Pierre, J. (1999) “Models of urban governance: the institutional dimension of urban politics.” Urban
Affairs Review, 34(3), 372–396.
Pierson, C. (1991) Beyond the Welfare State? The New Political Economy of Welfare. Penn State
University Press.
Pieterse, J.N. (2009) Development theory, 2nd ed., Sage.
246
Pieterse, J.N. (1998) “My paradigm or yours? Alternative development, post-development, reflexive
development.” Development and Change, 29(2), 343–373.
Pieterse, J.N. (1995) “The Cultural Turn in Development: Questions of Power.” The European
Journal of Development Research, 7(1), 176–192.
Pike, A., et al. (2013) “Local institutions and local economic growth: the state of the Local Enterprise
Partnerships (LEPs) in England–a national survey.” SERC Discussion Paper 150, London, SERC.
Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., Tomaney, J. (2006) Local and regional development. London and New
York: Routledge.
Pimpão, Marta Beatriz Oliveira. 2016. “Consolidação de processos chave do sistema de gestão da
qualidade (da empresa Dário Albano Zina Pimpão Lda–Ginja de Óbidos Oppidum).” Dissertação de
Mestrado, Escola Superior de Turismo e Tecnologia do Mar e o Instituto Politécnico de Leiria.
Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The experience economy: work is theatre & every business a stage.
Harvard Business Press.
Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H. (1998) “Welcome to the experience economy.” Harvard Business Review,
76, 97–105.
Pinto, J.C. (2012) “Culture and the Structural Funds in Portugal.” EENC Paper - European Expert
Network on Culture.
Piore, M.J., Sabel, C.F. (1984) The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity. Basic books.
Pirttiaho, P., Krawczyk, P. (2012) “Open Collaboration within Living Lab: Small Business
Perspective:” ISPIM Conference Proceedings. The International Society for Professional Innovation
Management.
Plzáková, L., Tittelbachová, Š., Studnička, P., Kalabisová, J. (2015) “Evaluation of selected socioeconomic impacts on development of an UNESCO site.” Presented at the 5th Int. Conference on
Tourism Management and Related Issues, European Institute of Advanced Studies in Management.
Porta, D. della (2008) “Comparative analysis: case-oriented versus variable-oriented research.” in: D.
della Porta and M. Keating (eds.) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198–222.
Porter, M.E. (2000) “Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global
Economy.” Economic Development Quarterly 14(1), 15–34.
Porter, M.E. (1998) On Competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Potŭček, M. (2009) “Welfare state transformations in Central and Eastern Europe.” In: T. Hayashi and
A. Ogushi (ed.) Post-communist transformations: the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and
Russia in comparative perspective. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.
Power, D. (2009) “Culture, creativity and experience in Nordic and Scandinavian cultural policy.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15, 445–460.
Pratt, A.C. (2009) “Cultural Economy.” in: R. Kitchen, N. Thrift (eds.), International Encylopedia of
Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 407–410.
Pratt, A.C. (2008) “Creative cities: the cultural industries and the creative class.” Geografiska Annaler.
Series B, Human Geography, 90(2), 107–117.
Pratt, A.C. (2007) “The state of the cultural economy: the rise of the cultural economy and the
challenges to cultural policy making.” in: A. Ribeiro (ed.) The urgency of theory. Manchester:
Carcanet Press/Gulbenkin Foundation. 166–190.
247
Pratt, A.C. (1997) “The Cultural Industries Sector: its definition and character from secondary sources
on employment and trade, Britain 1984-91.” Research Papers in Environment and Spatial Analysis,
no. 41, London School of Economics, Department of Geography.
Preston, P. (2005) “The cultural turn versus economic returns: The production of culture in an
information age.” The Republic, 4, 60–80.
Primorac, J. (2006) The position of cultural workers in creative industries: The south-eastern
European perspective. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.
Prista, M.L. (2013) “Turismo e sentido de lugar em Óbidos: uma pousada como metáfora.”
Etnografica 17(2), 369–392.
Pyykkönen, M., Simanainen, N., Sokka, S., Simanainen, N. (eds.) (2009) What About Cultural Policy?
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cultural Policy and Politics. Helsinki/Jyväskylä: Minerva.
Quigley, J.M. (2009) Urbanization, agglomeration, and economic development. Urban. Growth 115.
Quinn, B. (2009) “Festivals, events and tourism.” in T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds.) The Sage
Handbook of Tourism Studies, London: Sage, 483–503.
Quinn, B. (2005) “Arts festivals and the city.” Urban Studies, 42(5-6), 927–943.
Radcliffe, S. (2006) Culture and development in a globalizing world: Geographies, actors and
paradigms. Routledge.
Radcliffe, S., Laurie, N. (2006) “Culture and Development: Taking Culture Seriously in Development
for Andean Indigenous People.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(2), 231–248.
Ragin, C. (1981) “Comparative Sociology and the Comparative Method.” International Journal of
Comparative Sociology, 22(1-2), 102–120.
Ragin, C. (1987) The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies.
University of California Press.
Rao, V., Walton, M. (eds.) (2004) Culture and public action. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences
Ratzenböck, V., Okulski, K., Kopf, X. (2012) Cultural Policy Landscapes: A Guide to Eighteen
Central and South Eastern European Countries. Erste Foundation.
Regional Council of Central Finland (n.d.) “A builder of collaboration” [online] Available from:
https://www.keskisuomi.fi/filebank/23217-KS-liiton_esite_eng.pdf
Reimer, M., Blotevogel, H.H. (2012) “Comparing Spatial Planning Practice in Europe: A Plea for
Cultural Sensitization.” Planning Practice & Research, 27(1), 7–24.
Relph, E.C. (1976) Place and placelessness, Research in planning and design. London: Pion.
Rhodes, M. (1996) “Southern European Welfare States: Identity, Problems and Prospects for Reform.”
South European Society and Politics, 1(3), 1–22
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and
accountability. Open University Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996) “The new governance: governing without government.” Political Studies,
44(4), 652–667.
Richards, G., Palmer, R. (2010) Eventful cities: cultural management and urban revitalisation.
Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Richards, G., Wilson, J. (eds.) (2007) Tourism, creativity and development, Contemporary
geographies of leisure, tourism and mobility. London and New York: Routledge.
Rius-Ulldemolins, J., Hernàndez I Martí, G.-M., Torres, F. (2016) “Urban Development and Cultural
Policy ‘White Elephants’: Barcelona and Valencia.” European Planning Studies, 24(1), 61–75.
248
Rivas, M. (ed.) (2008) Óbidos, Portugal. Small cities great visions. Clusters in Low Density Urban
Areas-Baseline Study. Urbact II programme.
Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: social theory and global culture. Sage.
Rodrigues, M., Araújo, F. (2006) “Reforming portuguese local government: a new public management
approach.” Paper presented at International Research Symposium on Public Management. Galsgow,
Escócia: International Research.
Rodrigues, M. de L., Adão e Silva, P. (eds.) (2012) Políticas públicas em Portugal, Leya.
Rodríguez-Pose, A. (1998) Dynamics of regional growth in Europe: social and political factors.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., Storper, M. (2006) “Better rules or stronger communities? On the social
foundations of institutional change and its economic effects.” Economic Geography, 82(1), 1–25.
Romein, A., Trip, J.J. (2009) “Key elements of creative city development: An assessment of local
policies in Amsterdam and Rotterdam.” Paper presented at the City Futures Conference, Madrid,
Spain, 4–6 June.
Romer, P.M. (1989) “Human Capital And Growth: Theory and Evidence.” National Bureau of
Economic Research Working Paper No. w3173.
Rondinelli, D.A., Johnson Jr, J.H., Kasarda, J.D. (1998) “The changing forces of urban economic
development: Globalisation and city competitiveness in the 21st century.” Cityscape: A Journal of
Policy Development and Research, 3(3), 71–105.
Rondinelli, D.A., McCullough, J.S., Johnson, R.W. (1989) “Analysing decentralization policies in
developing countries: a political-economy framework.” Development and Change, 20(1), 57–87.
Rondinelli, D.A., Nellis, J.R., Cheema, G.S. (1983) “Decentralization in developing countries: a
review of recent experience.” World Bank staff working papers: Management and development
series, Washington, D.C., World Bank.
Ross, A. (2008) “The New Geography of Work: Power to the Precarious?” Theory, Culture & Society,
25(7-8), 31–49.
Ross, M.H. (1997) “Culture and identity in comparative political analysis.” in M.I. Lichbach and A.S.
Zuckerman (eds.) Comparative Politics: rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 42–80.
Rowe, J.E. (2009) Theories of local economic development: Linking theory to practice. Ashgate Pub.
Ruuska, J. (2012) Lutakko Living Lab – Service Innovation and Co-Design with People. [online]
Presentation. European Network of Living Labs. Available from:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/lllenoll26012012-120213094613-phpapp02/95/lutakko-living-labby-juha-ruuska-2-1024.jpg?cb=1329126480
Sabel, C., Saxenian, A. (2008) “A fugitive success: Finland’s economic future” SITRA report series,
Helsinki.
Sacco, P. L., Ferilli, G., Blessi, G.T. (2014) “Understanding culture-led local development: A critique
of alternative theoretical explanations.” Urban Studies, 51(13), 2806–2821.
Sacco, P.L., Blessi, G.T., Nuccio, M. (2009) “Cultural Policies and Local Planning Strategies: What Is
the Role of Culture in Local Sustainable Development?” The Journal of Arts Management, Law,
and Society, 39(1), 45–64.
Sahlgren, G.H. (2015) Real Finnish Lessons–The true story of an education superpower. London:
Centre for Policy Studies.
249
Santos, B. de S. (1993) “Modernidade, Identidade e a Cultura de Fronteira.” Revista Crítica de
Ciências Sociais, 11–39.
Santos, B. de S. (1991) “State, Wage Relations and Social Welfare in the Semiperiphery: the Case of
Portugal.” Oficina do CES, 23, 1-53.
Santos, B. de S. (1985) “Estado e sociedade na semiperiferia do sistema mundial: o caso português.”
Análise Social, 21 (87/88/89), 869–901.
Santos, H. (2003) “A propósito dos públicos culturais: uma reflexão ilustrada para um caso
português.” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 67, 75–97.
Sarimin, M., Yigitcanlar, T. (2012) “Towards a comprehensive and integrated knowledge-based urban
development model: status quo and directions.” International Journal of Knowledge-Based
Development, 3(2), 175–192.
Sartori, G. (1994) “La comparación y método comparativo.” in: G. Sartori and L. Morlino (ed.) La
comparación en las ciencias sociales. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 28–49
Sartori, G. (1970) “Concept misformation in comparative politics.” American Political Science
Review, 64(4), 1033–1053.
Sassatelli, M. (2009) Becoming Europeans: cultural identity and cultural policies. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sassatelli, M. (2011) “Urban Festivals and the Cultural Public Sphere. Cosmopolitanism between
Ethics and Aesthetics.” in: L. Giorgi, M. Sassatelli and G. Delanty (eds.) Festivals and the Cultural
Public Sphere, 12–28.
Sassen, S. (2001) “Cities in the global economy.” In R. Paddison (ed.) Handbook of Urban Studies.
London: Sage, 256-272.
Sassen, S. (1991) The global city: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Saukkonen, P., Ruusuvirta, M. (2013) “Reveries and Realities–Recent Developments in Finnish Urban
Cultural Policy.” Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift, 15(02), 204–223.
Savitch, H.V., Kantor, P. (2002) Cities in the international marketplace: The political economy of
urban development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Schmidt, V.A., Radaelli, C.M. (2004) “Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and
Methodological Issues.” West European Politics, 27(2), 183–210.
Schneider, A. (2003) “Decentralization: conceptualization and measurement.” Studies in Comparative
International Development, 38(3), 32–56.
Schoenberger, E. (1988) “From Fordism to flexible accumulation: technology, competitive strategies,
and international location.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6(3), 245–262.
Schoenmakers, J.H. (2012) The power of culture: A short history of anthropological theory about
culture and power. Globalisation Studies Groningen. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Scott, A.J. (2008) Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global
Resurgence of Cities. Oxford University Press.
Scott, A.J. (2006) “Creative Cities: Conceptual Issues and Policy Questions.” Journal of Urban
Affairs, 28(1), 1–17.
Scott, A.J. (2004) “Cultural-Products Industries and Urban Economic Development: Prospects for
Growth and Market Contestation in Global Context.” Urban Affairs Review, 39(4), 461–490.
Scott, A.J. (2000) The cultural economy of cities: essays on the geography of image-producing
industries. London: Sage.
250
Scott, A.J. (1997) “The Cultural Economy of Cities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 21(2), 323–339.
Scott, A.J. (1988) “Flexible production systems and regional development: the rise of new industrial
spaces in North America and Western Europe.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 12(2), 171–186.
Scott, A.J., Storper, M. (2007) “Regions, Globalization, Development.” Regional Studies, 41(S1):
S191–S205.
Scott, A.J., Storper, M. (1986) Production, work, territory: the geographical anatomy of industrial
capitalism. Boston: Allen & Unwin Pty.
Scott, C., Dodd, J.A., Sandell, R. (2014). Cultural Value: User value of museums and galleries: a
critical view of the literature. Project report. Leicester: Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Seers, D. (1979) “The birth, life and death of development economics.” Development and
Change,10(4), 707–719.
Segers, K., Huijgh, E. (2007) Clarifying the complexity and ambivalence of cultural industries.
Brussels: VUB.
Selada, C., Cunha, I.V., Tomaz, E. (2011) “Creative-based strategies in small cities: a case-study
approach.” REDIGE, 2, 79–111.
Selby, M. (2004) Understanding urban tourism: Image, culture and experience. London: IB Tauris.
Sellers, J.M. (2002) “The nation-state and urban governance: Toward multilevel analysis.” Urban
Affairs Review, 37(5), 611–641.
Selwood, S. (2002) “Measuring culture.” Spiked [online] www.spiked-online.com
Sen, A. (2004) “How Does Culture Matter?” in: V. Rao and M. Walton (eds.) Culture and public
action, Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences, pp 37-58.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as freedom, New York, Knopf.
Sen, A. (1988) “The Concept of Development.” in: H. Chenery and T.N. Srinivasan (eds.) Handbook
of Development Economics, Elsevier, Amsterdam: 9–26.
Servillo, L.A., et al. (2014) TOWN, small and medium sized towns in their functional territorial
context, Draft Final Report. Luxembourg: ESPON.
Sewell Jr, W.H. (1999) “The concept(s) of culture.” in: V. Bonnell and L. Hunt (ed.) Beyond the
Cultural Turn, 35–61
Shore, C. (2013) Building Europe: The cultural politics of European integration. Routledge.
Shore, C. (2006) “‘In uno plures’(?) EU Cultural Policy and the Governance of Europe.” Cultural
Analysis, 5, 7–26.
Shore, C. (1993) Inventing the “People’s Europe”: Critical Approaches to European Community
“Cultural Policy.” Man, New Series, 28(4) Dec., 779–800
Silva, A.S. (2007) “Como abordar as políticas culturais autárquicas? Uma hipótese de roteiro.”
Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 54, 11–33.
Silva, A.S. (2004) “As redes culturais: balanço e perspectivas da experiência portuguesa, 1987-2003.”
in: Públicos da Cultura. Actas do Encontro organizado pelo Observatório das Actividades
Culturais, Lisboa, 241–283.
Silva, A.S., Babo, E.P., Guerra, P. (2015) “Políticas culturais locais: contributos para um modelo de
análise.” Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 78, 105–124
251
Silva, A.S., Babo, E.P., Guerra, P. (2013) “Cultural policies and local development: The Portuguese
case.” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 12(2), 113–132.
Silva, C.N. (2009) “Local Political Leadership in Portugal: Excepcionalism or Convergence Towards
a’Mayoral Model’?” Lex localis-Journal of Local Self-Government, 7(3), 243–256.
Silva, G.T. (2015) “UNESCO and the coining of cultural policy.” 10th International Conference in
Interpretive Policy Analysis. Lille, France, 8–10.
Simmel, G. (2002) “The Metropolis and Mental Life (1903)” in: G. Bridge, S. Watson (eds.) The
Blackwell City Reader. Oxford and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 11–19.
Singh, J.P. (ed.) (2010) International Cultural Policies and Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skocpol, T. (1979) States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and
China. Cambridge University Press.
Skot-Hansen, D. (1998) “Between identity and image: Holstebro as a model for cultural policy.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 5(1), 149–167.
Smelser, N.J. (1976) Comparative methods in the social sciences. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
Smelser, N.J. (1966) “Notes on the Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Economic Activity:” in:
Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology. International Sociological Association,
Evian, 101–117.
Smidt-Jensen, S., Skytt, C.B., Winther, L. (2009) “The geography of the experience economy in
Denmark: Employment change and location dynamics in attendance-based experience industries.”
European Planning Studies, 17(6), 847–862.
Smith, A. (2012) Events and urban regeneration: The strategic use of events to revitalise cities.
Routledge.
Smith, P., Riley, A. (2011) Cultural theory: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Soares, C.M., Neto, M.J. (2013) Óbidos da “Vila Museu” a “Vila Cultural”: estudos de gestão
integrada de património artístico. Casal de Cambra: Caleidoscópio.
Soini, K., Birkeland, I. (2014) “Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability.”
Geoforum 51, 213–223.
Soini, K., Kivitalo, M., Kangas, A. (2012) “Exploring culture in sustainable rural development.” Paper
presented at The 7th International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR), 7-12 July,
Barcelona.
Soja, E. W. (2000) Postmetropolis Critical studies of cities and regions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Somers, M. R. (1995) “What’s political or cultural about political culture and the public sphere?
Toward an historical sociology of concept formation.” Sociological Theory 113–144.
Sørensen, A.S., Kortbek, H.B., Thobo-Carlsen, M. (2016) “’Participation’: The new cultural policy
and communication agenda.” Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift, 19(1), 4–18.
Sørensen, F., Fuglsang, L., Sundbo, J. (2010) Experience economy, creative class and business
development in small Danish towns. Urban Research & Practice, 3(2), 177–202.
Sotarauta, M. (2008) Power and leadership in promotion of regional development: An empirical
analysis of the work of Finnish regional development officers. Manchester Business School
Working Paper.
Stanhope, V., Dunn, K. (2011) “The curious case of Housing First: The limits of evidence based
policy.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(4), 275–282.
252
Stanilov, K. (2007) The post-socialist city. Urban form and space transformations in Central and
Eastern Europe after socialism. Geojournal Library. Heidelberg: Springer.
Statistics Finland, 2007) Statistics Finland - The growing years of Finland’s industrial production
[online]. Available from: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/toukokuu_en.html
Sternberg, R.J. (1999) Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stevenson, D. (2016) Understanding the problem of cultural non-participation: Discursive structures,
articulatory practice and cultural domination. Doctoral Thesis. Queen Margaret University,
Edinburgh.
Stevenson, D. (2004) “’Civic gold’ rush: Cultural planning and the politics of the third way.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), 119–131.
Stocking, G.W. (1966) “Franz Boas and the culture concept in historical perspective.” American
Anthropologist, 68(4), 867–882.
Stöhr, W.B., Taylor, D.R.F. (1981) Development from above or below? The dialectics of regional
planning in developing countries. J. Wiley & Sons.
Stoker, G. (1998) “Governance as theory: five propositions.” International Social Science Journal,
50(155), 17–28.
Stolarick, K., Florida, R. (2006) “Creativity, Connections and Innovation: A Study of Linkages in the
Montréal Region.” Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1799–1817.
Streeten, P. (2006) “Culture and Economic Development” in V.A. Ginsburgh and D. Throsby (eds.)
The Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Amsterdam: Elsevier NorthHolland, 399–412.
Şuteu, C. (2005a) “Cultural policies in transition: the issue of participation and the challenge of
democracy.” in: C. Weeda, et al. (eds.) (2005) The arts, politics and change. Participative cultural
policy-making in South East Europe. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation- ECUMEST
Association-Boekmanstudies, 24–32.
Şuteu, C. (2005b) Overview of the developments in Central and Eastern Europe between 1990/2003.
Ecumest Association and Romanian Academic.
Şuteu, C. (2002) “Small Europe: Why Decentralisation?” Policies for Culture Journal. [online]
Available from: http://www.policiesforculture.org/resources.php?id=105&idc=16&t=h
Švob-Đokić, N. (2006) “Transitional Cultural Policies in Southeastern Europe: An Effort to
Systematize Cultural Change.” Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Cultural
Policy Research (ICCPR), 12th-16th July, Vienna, Austria.
Švob-Đokić, N., Obuljen, N. (2003) “Comparative cultural policy issues related to cultural diversity in
South East Europe” Policies for Culture [online] Available from:
http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/files/137/en/nsvob-djokic.pdf
Swyngedouw, E. (2005) “Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governancebeyond-the-State.” Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004) “Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling.”
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 25–48.
Swyngedouw, E. (1997) “Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale.” in: K. Cox
(ed.) Spaces of globalization. New York: Guilford Press, 137–66
Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., Rodriguez, A. (2002) “Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large–scale
urban development projects and the new urban policy.” Antipode, 34(3), 542–577.
253
Sýkora, L., Mulíček, O. (2013) TOWN Small and medium sized towns in their functional territorial
context Applied Research. Case Study Report Czech Republic. ESPON Programme.
Szirmai, A. (2005) The dynamics of socio-economic development: an introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tainio, R., Pohjola, M., Lilja, K. (2000) “Economic performance of Finland after the Second World
War: from success to failure.” Advances in Organization Studies, 3, 277–290.
Talbot, C. (2008) Measuring public value. London: The Work Foundation.
Taloustieto Oy (2009) Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System-Full Report. On behalf of
the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Helsinki, Finland.
Taylor, P. J. (2004) World city network: a global urban analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
Taylor, S., Littleton, K. (2008) “Art work or money: Conflicts in the construction of a creative
identity: Art work or money.” The Sociological Review, 56(2), 275–292.
TCPA (2006) Connecting England – A Framework for Regional Development. Final Report of the
TCPA-Appointed Hetherington Commission on the Future Development Needs and Priorities of
England. Town and Country Planning Association.
Temenos, C., McCann, E. (2013) “Geographies of policy mobilities.” Geography Compass, 7(5), 344–
357.
TERA Consultants (2014) The economic contribution of the creative industries to EU GDP and
employment. Evolution 2008-2011. Study prepared for the Forum D’Avignon. Paris.
Tervoja, P. (2004) “Wellness and the future - what’s in store?” Jyväskylä, Human Tech Center
Finland, Autumn.
Teune, H., Przeworski, A. (1970) The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: WileyInterscience.
TFCC (2015) Cultural and Creative Spillovers in Europe. Report on a preliminary evidence review.
Tom Fleming Creative Consultancy. Available from:
https://ccspillovers.wikispaces.com/file/view/Cultural+and+creative+spillovers+in+Europe++full+report.pdf
Thomas, K., Chan, J. (2013) Handbook of research on creativity. Edward Elgar.
Thorelli, H.B. (1986) “Networks: between markets and hierarchies.” Strategic Management Jornal,
7(1), 37–51.
Thrift, N., Glennie, P. (1993) “Historical geographies of urban life and modern consumption:” in: G.
Kearns and C. Philo (eds) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Oxford:
Pergamon, 33–48.
Throsby, D. (2010) The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Throsby, D. (2003) “Determining the value of cultural goods: How much (or how little) does
contingent valuation tell us?” Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 275–285.
Throsby, D. (2001) Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, D. (1999) “Cultural capital.” Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(1-2), 3–12.
Tilly, C. (1975) The Formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton University Press.
Tindemans, L. (1976) “European Union: Report by Mr. Leo Tindemans, Prime Minister of Belgium,
to the European Council” (commonly called the Tindemans Report). Bulletin of the European
Communities, Supplement 1/76.
Todes, A. (2011) “Reinventing Planning: Critical Reflections.” Urban Forum, 22(2), 115–133.
254
Tödtling, F., Asheim, B., Boschma, R. (2013) “Knowledge sourcing, innovation and constructing
advantage in regions of Europe.” European Urban Regional Studies, 20(2), 161–169.
Tomaz, E. (2015) “Culture and Development Strategies in Small and Medium-sized European Cities.”
in: S. Khristova, M. Dragićević-Šešić and N. Duxbury (eds.) Culture and Sustainability in
European Cities: Imagining Europolis. Routledge, 86–99.
Tomaz, E. (2013) Políticas de desenvolvimento e cultura em pequenas e médias cidades europeias:
Questões metodológicas na análise comparativa de estudos de caso. CIES e-Working Paper nº.
148/2013 [online] Available from: https://repositorio.iscteiul.pt/bitstream/10071/5004/1/CIES_WP148_Elisabete%20Tomaz.pdf.
Tomaz, E. (2012) “Culture, Identity and Creativity in the Development Strategies of Small and
Medium-sized Cities in Non-Metropolitan Areas” Paper presented at Regional Studies Association
Conference. Special Session: NonMetropolitan perspectives on creativity and identity. 13-16 May.
Tomaz, E. (2007) Os Museus na Rede e as Redes de Museus. Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências da
Comunicação. Variante de Comunicação e Indústrias Culturais. Univ. Católica Portuguesa, Lisboa.
Tomka, G. (2013) “Reconceptualizing cultural participation in Europe: Grey literature review.”
Cultural Trends, 22(3-4), 259–264.
Tomlinson, J. (2008) “Cultural Globalization” in: G. Ritzer (ed.), The Blackwell companion to
globalization, Oxford: Blackwell, 352–366.
Tomlinson, J. (2003) “Globalisation and cultural identity.” The global transformations reader, 2, 269–
277.
Tomlinson, J. (1999) Globalisation and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Torcal, M., Magalhães, P. C. (2009) Political culture in Southern Europe: searching for
exceptionalism. Available from: http://www.pedromagalhaes.org/PDFs/PoliticalCultureinSouthernEuropemarc.pdf
Tosics, I., Nilsson, K.S.B. (2011) “Why the peri-urban?” in: A. Piorr, J. Ravetz and I. Tosics (eds.),
Peri-urbanisation in Europe: towards European policies to sustain urban-rural futures. Forest &
Landscape, University of Copenhagen.
Touraine, A. (1971) The post-industrial society: tomorrow’s social history: classes, conflicts and
culture in the programmed society. [1st pub. 1969] New York: Random House.
Towse, R. (2003) “Cultural industries.” in: R. Towse (eds.) A Handbook of Cultural Economics,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 170–176.
Towse, R. (2000) “Cultural economics, copyright and the cultural industries.” Társadalom és
gazdaság Közép-és Kelet-Európában/Society and Economy in Central and Eastern Europe, 107–
134.
Treib, O., Bähr, H., Falkner, G. (2005) “Modes of Governance: A Note towards Conceptual
Clarification” European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), N- 05-02. [online] Available from:
http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-newgov-N-05-02.pdf.
Tremblay, G. (1990) Les industries de la culture et de la communication au Québec et au Canada.
Sillery, Qc, Presses de l’Université du Québec-TéléUniversité.
Trip, J.J., Romein, A. (2010) “Creative city policy: Bridging the gap with theory.” Paper presented at
the Eighth European Urban and Regional Studies Conference “Repositioning Europe in an Era of
Global Transformation” Delft Univ. of Technology, OTB Research Inst. for the Built Environment.
Tucker, V. (1997) Cultural perspectives on development. Psychology Press.
255
Turok, I. (2005) “Cities, Competition and Competitiveness: Identifying New Connections.” In: Buck,
N., Gordon, I., Harding, A. and Turok, I. (eds.) Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban
Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Turok, I. (2004) “Cities, Regions and Competitiveness.” Regional Studies, 38(9), 1069–1083.
Tylor, E.B. (1871) Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy,
Religion, Art, and Custom. London: J. Murray.
UCLG (2015) Culture 21 Actions: Commitments on the role of culture in sustainable cities.
Barcelona: United Cities and Local Governments.
UCLG (2011) Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development. Policy Statement oficially adopted
on 17 November 2010, at the World Summit of Local and Regional Leaders – 3rd World Congress
of United Cities and Local Governments.
Ullman, E.L. (1954) “Amenities as a factor in regional growth.” Geographic Review, 119–132.
UN (2011) General Assembly Resolution 66/208 (a/66/187) adopted at 66th plenary meeting.
UN (2010) General Assembly Resolution adopted on the report of the Second Committee 65th plenary
meeting (A/65/438)] 65/166.
UN (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
A/res/55/2.
UN DESA (2014) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. Highlights.
(ST/ESA/SER.A/352). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population
Division.
UN ECE (2008) Spatial planning: key instrument for development and effective governance with
special reference to countries in transition. Geneva: United Nations.
UNDP (2008) Creative economy report 2010 creative economy: a feasible development option.
Geneva: United Nations.
UNDP (2004) Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world, Human development report. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press.
UNDP (1990) Human Development Report. New York: UNDP.
UNESCO (2016) Culture: urban future: global report on culture for sustainable urban development.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2015) Reshaping cultural policies: a decade promoting the diversity of cultural
expressions for development: 2005 Convention global report. Paris: United Nations Educational.
UNESCO (2014) Florence Declaration: Culture, Creativity and Sustainable Development: Research,
Innovation, Opportunities. 3rd World Forum on Culture and Cultural Industries. Florence, Italy.
UNESCO (2009) Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue: UNESCO world report.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2001) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Adopted on the 31st Session of the
General Conference of UNESCO PARIS.
UNESCO (2000) Change in Continuity. Concepts and Tools for a Cultural Approach to Development.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (1997) A Cultural Approach to Development. Planning Manual: Concepts and Tools. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO (ed.) (1995) The Cultural dimension of development: towards a practical approach, Culture
and development series. Paris: UNESCO.
256
UNESCO (1982a) Cultural industries: a challenge for the future of culture. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (1982b) Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies. World Conference on Cultural
Policies – MONDIACULT. Mexico City, 26th July to 6th August.
UNESCO (1969) Cultural policy: a preliminary study. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO, UNDP (2013) Creative Economy Report 2013: widening local development pathways.
Paris: UNESCO and UNDP.
UNESCO-UIS (2012) Measuring the economic contribution of cultural industries: a review and
assessment of current methodological approaches. Montreal, Canada: UNESCO Institute for
Statistics.
UNESCO-UIS (2009) The 2009 UNESCO framework for cultural statistics (FCS). UNESCO Institute
for Statistics, Montreal.
Urry, J. (1995) Consuming places, International library of sociology. London and New York:
Routledge.
Van den Berg, L., Braun, E., Van der Meer, J. (1998) National urban policies in the European Union:
responses to urban issues in the fifteen member states. Ashgate Publishing.
Van der Berg, L., et al. (1982) Urban Europe: A study of growth and decline, London and New York:
Pergamon Press.
Van der Borg, J., Russo, A. (2005) The impacts of culture on the Economic development of Cities.
Draft Sept.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2015) “Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach.” Methods of Critical
Discourse Studies, 63–74.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2001) “Critical Discourse Analysis.” in: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, H.E. Hamilton
(eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 352–371.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1997) “What is political discourse analysis.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1),
11–52.
Van Heur, B. (2012)” Small Cities and the Sociospatial Specificity of Economic. Development: A
Heuristic Approach:” in: A. Lorentzen and B. Van Heur (eds.) Cultural Political Economy of Small
Cities. London: Routledge.
Van Heur, B. (2010) “Small cities and the geographical bias of creative industries research and
policy.” Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2(2), 189–192.
Van Oort, F.G., Raspe, O. (2005) “The knowledge economy and Dutch cities” Paper Presented at the
European Regional Science Conference (ERSA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Van Winden, W. (2010) “Knowledge and The European City.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en
Sociale Geografie, 101(1), 100–106.
Vasanen, A. (2013) “Spatial Integration and Functional Balance in Polycentric Urban Systems: A
Multi-Scalar Approach.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104(4), 410–425.
Vestheim, G. (2009) “The Autonomy of Culture and the Arts – from the early Bourgeois Era to late
Modern ‘Runaway World’.” in: M. Pyykkönen, N. Simainen and S. Sokka (eds.) What About
Cultural Policy? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cultural Policy and Politics. Minerva:
Helsinki/Jyväskylä, 53–31.
Vickery, J. (2007) “The emergence of culture-led regeneration: a policy concept and its discontents.”
Working Paper, Centre for Cultural Policy Studies. Coventry: University of Warwick.
257
Virolainen, J. (2016) “Participatory turn in cultural policy? An analysis of the concept of cultural
participation in Finnish cultural policy.” Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift, 19(1), 59–77.
Visit York (2015) Economic impact 2015 – headlines [online] Available from:
http://mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/YK/cms/pdf/Economic%20impact%202015%20%20headlines.pdf
Vondrouš, J. (2008) “Further reflections on Roma in Český Krumlov by the first freely elected
Mayor.” in: R. Weber, S. Nagypál, P. Šajda (eds.) Integrity in Integration Developing Sustainable.
Dialogue Ecumenical Anthology VII WSCF Central European Subregion. BGÖI & WSCF-CESR
& Oikumené - Akademická YMCA, Budapest, Praha, 40–42.
VVA, KMU Forschung Austria (2016) Boosting the competitiveness of cultural and creative
industries for growth and jobs. Study on behalf of the European Commission. Luxembourg:
European Commission Publ. Office.
Waitt, G., Gibson, C. (2009) “Creative Small Cities: Rethinking the Creative Economy in Place.”
Urban Studies, Sage 46(5/6), 1223–1246.
Wallerstein, I. (1985) “The relevance of the concept of semiperiphery to Southern Europe.”
Semiperipheral development: The politics of southern Europe in the twentieth century, 31–39.
Wallerstein, I. (1979) The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1974) “The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for
comparative analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387–415.
Ward, K. (2010) “Towards a relational comparative approach to the study of cities.” Progress in
Human Geography, 34(4), 471–487.
Warde, A. (2002) “Production, consumption and ‘cultural economy’.” in: P. du Gay and M. Pryke
(eds.) Cultural Economy, Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life. London: Sage, 185–200.
Watson, S., Gibson, K. (1995) Postmodern cities and spaces. Basil Blackwell
WCCD (1995) Our Creative Diversity. Report of the World Commission on Culture and
Development. Paris: EGOPRIM.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development Report,
Oxford paperbacks. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (2002) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalismo. [Translated by Talcott Parsons
from the German, published in 1930 by Allen and Unwin]. Oxford and New York: Routledge
Weber, M. (1958) The city [first English translation 1958, original published posthumously in 1921]
New York: Free Press.
Wedeen, L. (2002) “Conceptualizing culture: Possibilities for political science.” American Political
Science Review, 96(4), 713–728.
Williams, R. (1985) Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. Oxford University Press.
Willis, K. (2011) Theories and practices of development. 2nd edition. Taylor & Francis.
Wirth, L. (1938) “Urbanism as a way of life.” American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1–24.
Without Walls Partnership (2011) York – The City Action Plan. The strategy for growth 2011-2015.
Available from:
http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/33/the_strategy_for_york_2011_to_2025.pdf
Without Walls Partnership (2011) The Strategy for York 2011-2025. Summary. Available from:
http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/33/the_strategy_for_york_2011_to_2025.pdf
258
Without Walls Partnership (2008) York – a city making history. Vision and Sustainable Community
Strategy 2008 – 2025. Available from: https://www.yorkwow.org.uk/documents/attachment68.pdf
Work, R. (1999) The role of Participation and Partnership in Decentralised Governance: A brief
synthesis of Policy Lessons and Recommendations of nine country case studies on service delivery
for the poor. UNDP.
World Bank (2006) Understanding socio-economic and political factors to impact policy change.
Report no. 36442-GLB. Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Yigitcanlar, T. (2014) “Innovating urban policymaking and planning mechanisms to deliver
knowledge-based agendas: a methodological approach.” International Journal of Knowledge-Based
Development 5(3), 253–270.
Yigitcanlar, T. (2009) “Planning for knowledge-based urban development: global perspectives.”
Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 228–242.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. (2008) “Knowledge-based strategic planning: harnessing (in)tangible
assets of city-regions.” Proceedings of the International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics.
Centre for Value Management, University of Basilicata, 296–306.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008) “Rising knowledge cities: the role of
urban knowledge precincts.” Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(5), 8–20.
York City Council (2014a) City of York Local Plan. Publication (Draft) Annex A. Available from:
https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/20051/planning_policy
York City Council (2014) City of York Streetscape Strategy and Guidance. Available from:
www.york.gov.uk/.../id/.../streetscape_strategy_and_guidance.pdf
York City Council (2010) York New City Beautiful: Towards an Economic Vision. Available from:
https://www.york.gov.uk/
York City Council (2005) City of York Local Plan - Incorporating the 4th Set of Changes (Draft).
Available from: https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/20051/planning_policy
York City Council (2006) Core Strategy Issues and Options. Available from:
https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/20051/planning_policy York City Council (2009) Local
Development Framework. Core Strategy Preferred Options. Available from:
https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/20051/planning_policy
York Civic Trust (2015) Sustaining the city beautiful: a Programme for York’s city centre in the near
future. York
Young, G. (2008) “The culturization of planning.” Planning Theory, 7(1), 71–91
Yúdice, G. (2003) The expediency of culture. Uses of culture in the global era. Duke University Press.
Zaková, E. (2013) Culture and the Structural Funds in the Czech Republic. European Expert Network
on Culture.
Zukin, S. (1998) “Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption.” Urban
Studies, 35(5/6), 825.
Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell
Zukin, S. (1989) Loft living: culture and capital in urban change. Rutgers University Press.
259
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Related Papers
Download
Download
Download
Estudos de Sociologia, 2022
Download
Culture and Sustainability of European Cities: Imagining Europolis, 2015
Download
The Olfactory Story of Perfume in Literature, Psychology and the Arts, 2023
Download
