Lidia Varbanova
The “European Capital of Culture” (ECOC) is a title given to a city by the European Union for a period of one year. During this time, the city is given a chance to showcase its cultural life and cultural development on a broad European and international platform. A number of European cities have used this opportunity to transform visibly (and, in some cases, completely) their cultural infrastructure, to boost the local economy, to attract tourists and to improve the city’s visibility abroad [1].
ECOC guidelines recommend that cities should consider four key issues when bidding for the title:
As early as 1991, the organisers of the European Cities of Culture created the Network of European Cultural Capitals and Months (ECCM). Based in Luxembourg, the network enabled the exchange and dissemination of information, primarily among the organisers of the events. In 1994, the network carried out one of the first comprehensive studies on the impact of European Capitals of Culture since its creation.
In December 2006, the University Network of the European Capitals of Culture (UNeECC) was founded in Pécs, Hungary, inspired by the idea that it would be useful for universities and higher education establishments based in European Capitals of Culture to use this platform to stimulate new forms of academic and educational institutional collaboration.
Significant investment has been made by individual cities, cultural organisations and many levels of government into the European Capitals of Culture Programme since it was launched in 1985. The impact of this investment and the short- and long-term benefits generated by these major cultural years has also been studied and analysed from a range of perspectives, both by the cities themselves and by external experts. Of particular interest to LabforCulture is the catalysing effect of the ECOC on a local and regional level and the implication of local small- and medium-size cultural organisations and operators and their audiences in the planning and implementation of these major undertakings.
Our areas of interest include the impact on:
Evaluation parameters, identified in the ECOC resources mapped by LabforCulture, are mainly related to: economy; tourism; marketing; infrastructure; social and cultural effects. Here are some examples, extracted from various resources:
The early ECOC resources (before 1990) did not give much consideration to economic parameters. The ECOC Glasgow in 1990 developed a new trend in studies related to the effects on cities, emphasising the importance of economic development and image improvement. In recent years, the Capitals of Culture have become major engines for economic development and urban regeneration. In the last three to four years, many authors have become interested in the economic, tourism and marketing impact of ECOC programmes [2].
Only sporadic examples exist of measuring the effects of a designated ECOC on the organisational and managerial changes in the cultural sector of the city, such as: improvement of organisational strength in the cultural sector; confidence in capabilities of artistic and cultural organisations; contribution to the “learning curve” of cultural organisations; boosting local creativity; improved managerial capacities of leaders and staff in the cultural sector; overall institutional capacity building; acquiring of marketing skills in attracting diverse audiences.
The current resource mapping did not identify resources containing a comprehensive analysis focusing on one city (or comparative analysis) of the intangible “soft” effects of an ECOC, such as: enhancing local pride; improving the sense of community, cohesion and belonging; mobilising residents; levels and tools of connection between local cultural activities and diverse audiences; intercultural dialogue.
The change in the tools, models, patterns and “volume” of cultural cooperation between local communities across Europe as a result of ECOC activities is also not identified as a parameter in the final evaluations and studies (with the exception of the chapter on Regional Cooperation in the Luxembourg 2008 final report).
The majority of reviewed resources are related to the evaluation of individual cities. One of the first evaluation reports was carried out by J. Myerscough et al related to measuring the impact of Glasgow as European Capital of Culture in 1990 [3]. The 2001 report by GiannaLia Cogliandro assesses the strengths and weaknesses of ECOC cooperation, using this experience to facilitate the development and the implementation of cultural networks in Europe [4]. Porto (2001), Salamanca (2002), Graz (2003), Cork (2005), Sibiu (2007) are among those cities that have made a good attempt to comprehensively evaluate the experience as a result of being an ECOC.
The research mapping shows that there is no focused research available on the effects of the cultural capitals on the city’s social and cultural life, on community development and on parameters related to international cultural cooperation. Only partial answers to these questions could be extracted from the research works, articles and papers.
Comparative analysis between cities was also missing until the establishment of the ATLAS Cultural Capital Research Group in 2000, which aimed to conduct research on a transnational basis. The first report in a series of studies on the European Capitals of Culture is ATLAS’s comparative research, which provides the basis for qualitative research on the effects of ECOC [5].
A 2005 research paper by B. Quinn et al aims to identify any legacies of Cork being European Capital of Culture in 2005 [6]. One of the conclusions in the report is that “twenty eight of the organisations surveyed stated that their involvement in the Year resulted in the formation of new linkages with other organisations, most often within the Cork area but also elsewhere in Ireland and abroad.”
From 2002-2005, G. Beatriz led a research project investigating the long-term legacy of Glasgow 1990, based at the Centre for Cultural Policy Research, University of Glasgow.
A milestone in the research related to cultural capitals is Robert Palmer’s 2004 study, “European Cities and Capitals of Culture”, commissioned by the EC. The study evaluates the cultural, economic, visitors’ and social perspectives of the ECOC for the period 1994-2004, following an earlier evaluation study of the ECOC (1985-1993).
The study points out the six basic aspects of the need for an ECOC to have a European dimension:
These aspects are indirectly connected with our current area of research interest: “impact of ECOC on cultural cooperation between local communities”. The current mapping did not identify any resources or comparative analyses where these aspects are coherently and consistently evaluated.
Palmer’s report emphasises a number of critical and important factors for the success of an ECOC city, including: local involvement; partnership; long-term planning; clear objectives; sufficient funding; political will. The study clearly points out that: “Social objectives were not the highest priority for most ECOC, yet almost all included projects with social objectives. Many ECOC also ran projects to create cultural opportunities for social groups outside the mainstream city culture (“cultural inclusion”). Initiatives were most frequently aimed at young people, ethnic minorities and disabled people. A small number of ECOC structured their programme around those objectives. Fewer ECOC ran projects to achieve purely social goals (‘cultural instrumentalism’).... However there was very little evaluation of social impacts that would allow the drawing of reliable conclusions. More evaluation could be particularly useful in this area as social projects offer significant potential for ECOC to create long-term initiatives.”
Based on the findings in the report, the EC made recommendations and subsequently changed the procedures for selecting and monitoring ECOC and for placing increased emphasis on the cultural and European components.
The recent study on the impact of the European Capital of Culture in Sibiu, Romania by G. Richards and Ilie Rotariu (2007) examines visitors’ profiles in terms of origin, occupation status, motivation for visiting, visitors’ experience, travel characteristics, visitors’ expenditure, and much more. The analysis demonstrates generation of significant visitor spending in Sibiu and the improvement of the city’s image. However, visitors were slightly less convinced about the social impacts, such as creating social cohesion and improving quality of life. As these impacts are less visible in the short term, this fact is not a surprise.
The most recent report by Palmer [7] outlines several important programming trends of ECOC: seasonal programming; multi-annual programming; European dimension of the programmes. The “Regional Partnership” criteria is emphasised in the report as an important selection procedure for the ECOC bid (as a consequence of the decreasing size of candidate cities).
The second key requirement for a city to become an ECOC – “Involving local people and integrating local culture” – is the least evaluated in the mapped research works and reports. It is unclear to what extent local cultural groups and communities were involved in the respective ECOC year, by what means and in what kind of programming. Although some sporadic examples exist in the mapped resources:
One of the most comprehensive reports on ECOC is “Luxembourg and Greater Region, European Capital of Culture 2007” (2008). Among the main evaluation characteristics analysed in the report are: cultural development; cultural participation; marketing and communication; tourism effects; economic effects. Chapter 11 of the report pays special attention to social effects, in particular to: audience development, social cohesion (related to migrants, youth, access to events, etc.). Chapter 12 is devoted to regional cooperation characteristics and trends:
“The success of the cross-border projects was due to a number of factors:
A promising new initiative is Impacts 08 – a joint research initiative of the University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University to evaluate the social, cultural, economic and environmental effects of Liverpool ECOC 2008. The importance of this initiative is the attempt to “develop a ‘research model’ for evaluating the multiple impact of culture-led regeneration programmes that can be applied to events across the UK and beyond”.
Another recent research study focuses on Stavanger 2008 in Norway, to be conducted by the University of Stavanger and the International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS). This study seems to be the first that tries to identify the connections between ECOC events and the local life of citizens.
A further recent development in this field is the new Athens Documentation Centre on Capitals of Culture, which aims to gather all information relevant to past, current and future ECOC. Materials from more than 35 past capitals and months of culture have been gathered, following an information grid/questionnaire in the following areas: socio-economic, historical and cultural context; the cultural year experience (objectives, problems faced, results); artistic programmes; social programmes; publications (catalogues, newsletters, etc.); cultural infrastructure (existing and creation of new venues); evaluation.
Hopefully, the results of the centre’s enquiries, and the new studies on Liverpool and Stavanger, will provide new highlights on the evaluation and characteristics related to local and regional cultural capacities, the connection between local arts and cultural activities, as well as indicators related to the changes in the scope, methods and tools of cultural cooperation following a city’s status as European Cultural Capital.
Footnotes:
[1] The “European City of Culture” was launched in 1985 by the Council of Ministers. Since then, the initiative has become more and more successful across Europe and has gained increasing interest from citizens and visitors. Until 2004, the “European Cities of Culture” were designated on an intergovernmental basis. In 2005 Cork City, Ireland, was the first city in Europe to hold the prestigious European Capital of Culture title. Each year the member states unanimously selected the cities most likely to welcome the event and the European Commission granted a subsidy to the selected city. As of 2005, the EU's institutions started to take part in the selection procedure of the cities that will host the event.
In 1990, the Ministers of Culture launched the "European Cultural Month". This event is similar to the European City of Culture but goes on for a shorter period and is addressed to Central and Eastern European countries in particular. The EC grants a subsidy for the European Cultural Month each year. Only European cities within EU member states are eligible. However, the EU council can designate one city from a non-EU country for a given year, if that city's designation is approved unanimously by the Council.
[2] Besson, E. and Sutherland, M., Richards, G., Wilson J., Bianchinni, F.
[3] Myerscough, J., Booth, P. and Boyle, R. (1991-1993).
[4] GiannaLia Cogliandro (2001) “European Cities of Culture for the year 2000. A wealth of urban cultures for celebrating the turn of the century”.
[5] Greg Richards, Erik Hitters and Carlos Fernandes (2002) “Rotterdam and Porto: Cultural Capitals 2001: visitor research”.
[6] Quinn, B. and O’Halloran, E. (2005) “An analysis of Emerging Cultural Legacies”.
[7] Palmer, R. and Richards, G., “European Cultural Capital Report” (2007)
Image credits:
Liverpool, European Capital of Culture 2008 http://www.liverpool08.com
Luxembourg, European Capital of Culture 2007 http://www.mcesr.public.lu
Cork, European Capital of Culture 2005 http://www.cork2005.ie
Lille, European Capital of Culture 2004 http://iis22.domicile.fr
LabforCulture is a partner initiative of the European Cultural Foundation. LabforCulture is grateful for the support provided by its funders.
