You can read a summary of my master's thesis in English (see below).
For a complete version (only available in German!) please contact: annariepe@hotmail.com
Questions? Ask in German, English, French or Spanish!
Title: European Cultural Policy and the enlargement of the EU
The inclusion of new EU member countries into European cultural policy, considering as example the program “Culture 2000”.
ABSTRACT:
The enlargement of the EU during the past years poses not only new economical and administrative challenges for both the EU and its citizens. While economic topics domi-nate the academic, political and publicly published discourse about the EU, there is a growing awareness of the importance of cultural aspects. This especially includes the search for identity, ways to solve current societal problems, and a vision for the future of Europe. This thesis is to be regarded against that background. It focuses on the use of European cultural policy programs in the process of including the new countries that joined the EU in its eastern expansion, and especially on the program “Culture 2000”.
The main questions are:
- Since when, and in which way, have the candidate countries been included in European cultural policy, especially the program “Culture 2000”?
- How did the candidate countries / new members take advantage of or use the program, in comparison to the older member countries?
- What reasons for the distribution of projects to countries can be identified?
The main focus of the thesis is the quantitative analysis of project data in each of the countries. A study of approved projects in the form of an evaluation of funded projects could serve as a critical starting point for further academic studies. However, these will not be part of this thesis.
For the initial approach to the subject I chose elements of the method of analysis of po-litical fields from the political sciences. In addition, I conducted questionnaire-supported expert interviews. The central focus of this thesis is the quantitative analysis of partici-pants’ data within the EU program „Culture 2000“. Following, I will shortly introduce the main results and hypotheses.
Results of quantitative analysis
For the analysis of the project data concerning “Culture 2000“ in 29 countries during the years 2001 through 2004, and in addition to the comparison of project data, I tried to re-late these data with other measures such as GDP or population of a country, as well as duration of the country’s membership in the EU.
The quintessence was that there is a different distribution of projects among the coun-tries, especially in regards to the status as new or old members of the EU.
Despite the difficult data situation, the following results can be deduced from the study:
- Italy and France are in the lead, both in regards to the status as project leaders and project co-organizers. Cyprus and Malta, as well as Estonia, Slovakia and Latvia, form the tail-light of both measures.
- The division in new and old countries showed that there is a strong disequilibrium between the new and the old member countries , in regards to absolute as well as relative measures. Taking percentage as a measure, the old countries initiate and lead about twice as many projects, and supply almost twice as many co-organizers as the new countries.
- Yet, when adding population measures, it shows that the distribution of projects strongly depends on the size of countries, and this way discrepancies between new and old countries diminish. While the differences are still great regarding the distribution of project leaders among old and new countries, the numbers are al-most equal in regards to co-organizers.
- Further, it also shows that the possibility to engage partners in a project that do not have to enter a (monetary) commitment in advance, does not result in a sub-stantial increase of participation from, old or new, countries. Especially partners from applicants’ countries take the chance to join a “Culture 2000” project. The partner organizations did not note a significant increase in participation from new countries for the year of 2004.
- The comparison of countries, their GDP, and their participation in the program did not produce any significant results. Besides the finding that the GDP of the new countries is in average only about half of that of the old countries, it can only be added that the extremes (very high or very low GDP) tend to correlate with small countries, and therefore result in relatively positive population-applicant ratios.
- When comparing the amount of projects to the duration of membership in the EU, one can witness a simplistic gradation of countries by duration of membership.
Hypotheses of this thesis
After completing the analysis of the project data, as well as the evaluation of hypotheses-generated interviews, three factors seem to have an influence on the distribution of pro-jects among the countries:
1. Small countries tend to be represented less than bigger countries. (size)
2. Rich(er) countries are able to organize more projects. (finances)
3. Countries that have been members of the EU for a longer duration have a better starting position to apply for, and conduct projects. (duration)
The size of a country
The size of a country, measured by either acreage or population, can influence the ca-pacity of a country to participate in international cultural projects. Smaller countries by definition have a smaller amount of people engaged in the cultural sector. The project analysis showed that countries with a large population such as Germany and France have immensely intensive participation when looking at absolute figures. Yet taking into account the proportional engagement in projects in relation to population changes the picture. The small countries move to the top of the list, while densely populated countries relocate in the middle or bottom section of the list. This supports the theory about the importance of a country’s size mentioned above.
Financial problems
Another reason for the differing distribution could be the financial situation of the pro-gram, the country, or the cultural organization. The lack of funding is often cited as a reason for a smaller contribution than was asked for. This “financial problem“ is com-posed of several components, such as (among others):
- Problems with the co-financing / financing of the 5%
- Problems because of differing cultural budgets in the countries
- Difficulties during the phase of preparation
- Necessity of changing national conditions
In order to analyze the financial aspect quantitatively, I brought the distribution of projects and the countries’ GDPs into relation. Comparisons of countries using GDP as a meas-ure have shown that no clear classification can be made by only using GDP figures, and therefore no direct correlation can be found. Nevertheless, as many experts have as-serted, it does have an important influence on participation.
Duration of membership in the EU / Experiences with the EU
As a last and most important factor I want to mention the duration of membership in the EU. It is also made up of several elements:
- The CEE are subject to strong processes of change, which have already settled in with the older member countries.
- Local changes in favor of cultural funding have to be made (adjustment of local conditions).
- The attitude of the local people has to change in some ways (lack of openness, awareness, (re-)cognition of opportunities, reduction of fear of the EU).
- The „rules of the game“ for the EU have to be learned.
- Contacts and networks have to be established and expanded.
- (Foreign-) languages are necessary for cooperation with other countries, and can pose obstacles.
- The old countries have a „head start”.
This hypothesis about the importance of the duration of membership is supported by the project data. These show that the engagement and the interlocking of countries could also rely on the duration of membership in the EU or the duration of close co-operation with it.
Conclusion
The EU has formulated eight specific goals for the program “Culture 2000”. These espe-cially focus on intercultural dialogue, cultural plurality and the sharing and discovering of collective cultural elements.
Yet because these are objectives that can only be attained in cooperation, the involve-ment of as many countries and regions within the EU is of immense importance. This is in concordance with the view of the European Commission.
The decision to open the program to candidate countries several years before their ac-tual accedence underlines the pioneering task that is assigned to cultural policy in regards to the integration of new countries. Consequential cultural policy has to, also indirectly, ensure the opportunity for the countries to really participate, not only in theory. If culture is to be used to enhance integration and European identity, as is demanded by the EU’s declaration of intent, it can only be consequential to explicitly include, and thereby actively support, the cultural programs of the EU in order to foster a multifaceted dialogue.
In order to detect possible obstacles and to get an overview of the participation of all member countries, I find a global approach to be insufficient. The itemization of the countries’ participation is more than appropriate for this matter. Only this could show that the integration of the new member countries into the program “Culture 2000” has not yet been entirely successful.
author: Anna Riepe,
Lüneburg / Germany, Spring 2006
Tagged as:
cultural policy, culture 2000, enlargment, eu, new member states, participation
LabforCulture is a partner initiative of the European Cultural Foundation. LabforCulture is grateful for the support provided by its funders.
