Skip to main content
Log in

Deconstructing a Tower of Babel: Privatisation, decentralisation and devolution as ideas in good currency in cultural policy

  • Published:
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Privatisation, decentralisation and devolution are three ideas in good currency that have permeated the debate on cultural policy over the past fifteen years. They are typically used as if there were a broad consensus as to their meanings and implications, but, in fact, these three words stand in for a much more complicated set of views and understandings of appropriate directions to take in cultural policy. This article considers the various motivations for each of these interrelated ideas and demonstrates that a precise and nuanced knowledge of policy intent is critical to understanding their implications for policy. Whatever words are used to describe a particular place's cultural policy, if the intent of that policy is concealed, intentionally or unintentionally, in a vocabulary whose implications are neither clearly spelled out nor fully appreciated, it will be impossible to know exactly what is to be done and how it is to be judged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arts Council of Great Britain (1984)The Glory of the Garden: The Development of the Arts in England (A Strategy for a Decade), The Aris Council of Great Britain, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (1991) Government policy and art museums in the United Kingdom, in M. Feldstein (ed.)The Economics of Art Museums, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, J. (1989)The Privatization Decision: Ends, Private Means, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • The European (1992) So what in the world does ‘subsidiarity’ mean?Maastricht Made Simple, Special Guide No. 1.

  • Everitt, A. (ed.) (1996)Trial, Trust and Tribulation: The Distribution of Roles and Changing Nature of Relations Between Governments and Arts Councils, Associations and Foundations. Report of the European Round Table, Cultural Information and Research Centres Liaison in Europe, Budapest, March, available from Arts Council of Finland, Helsinki.

  • Feist, A. and Hutchison, R. (eds) (1990)Cultural Trends 1990: Funding the Arts in Seven Western Countries, Policy Studies Institute, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grampp, W.D. (1989)Pricing the Priceless: Art, Artist, and Economics, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hero, P. (1986) Variations on a theme: supporting state cultural development with non-appropriated funds in the 1980s, paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Cultural Economics, the Association for Cultural Economics, Avignon.

  • Hillman-Chartrand, H. and McCaughey, C. (1989) The arm's length principle and the arts: an international perspective — past, present, and future, in M.C. Cummings, Jr. and J.M.D. Schuster (eds)Who's to Pay for the Aris? The International Search for Models of Support, American Council for the Arts, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1984) The hidden public sector: the world of para-government organizations, Studies in Public Policy No. 133, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Seminar on Foundations (1989) Foundations in a civil society: principles and core concepts, paper prepared for the International Seminar on Foundations, Moscow, July.

  • The Journal of Arts Management and Law (1990), The Independent Commission's Report to Congress on the National Endowment for the Arts', Fall, 20, 3.

  • Kelly, A. (1989)Cultural Policy in Ireland, UNESCO Studies and Documents on Cultural Policies, The Irish Museums Trust, Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, H.B. (1986)Checks Unbalanced: The Quiet Side of Public Spending, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, A.G. (1995)Arts Lessons from the Rise and Fall of Public Arts Funding, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulford, R. (1991) Pulford goes to Europe,Britons Abroad.

  • Research Institute for Culture (1988)State, Market, Culture, proceedings of the East-West Round-Table Conference on Financing Culture, Budapest, May.

  • Roubínek, O. (date unknown) Theatre after the revolution: where does it go from here? Magazine article photocopied from unknown source.

  • Salamon, L.M. and Anheier, H.K. (eds) (1997)Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross National Analysis, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J.M.D. (1985a) The interrelationships between public and private funding of the arts in the united states,Journal of Arts Management and Law, 14.

  • Schuster, J.M.D. (1985b) The non-fungibility of arts funding: perspectives on corporation and foundation support, in Research & Evaluation, the Canada Council, Proceedings from Research Seminar #4,The Arts: Corporations and Foundations, the Canada Council, Ottawa, Ontario.

  • Schuster, J.M.D. (1985c)Supporting the Arts: An International Comparative Study, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J.M.D. (1987) Issues in supporting the arts through tax incentives,The Journal of Arts Management and Law, 16.

  • Schuster, J.M.D. (1989a) Government leverage of private support: matching grants and the problem with ‘new’ money, in M.J. Wyszomirski and P. Clubb (eds)The Cost of Culture: Patterns and Prospects of Private Arts Patronage, American Council for the Arts, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J.M.D. (1990) Resource allocation to the arts,Society, 27.

  • Smith, S.R. and Lipsky, M. (1993)Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, R. (ed.) (1987)The Arts — Politics, Power, and the Purse, The Arts Council of Great Britian, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M.C. (1988)Arts Councils in Conflict, Research & Evaluation, the Canada Council, Ottawa, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temin, P. (1991) An economic history of American art museums, in M. Feldstein (ed.)The Economics of Art Museums, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illionis.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hemel, A. and van der Wielen, N. (eds) (1997)Privatization/Désétatisation and Culture: Limitations or Opportunities for Cultural Development in Europe? Conference reader prepared for the Round Table, Cultural Information and Research Centres Liaison in Europe, Amsterdam, June, available from Boekmanstichting Amsterdam.

  • Zeigler, J.W. (1994)Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment for the Arts versus America, Capella Books, Chicago, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schuster, J.M. Deconstructing a Tower of Babel: Privatisation, decentralisation and devolution as ideas in good currency in cultural policy. Voluntas 8, 261–282 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354200

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354200

Keywords

Navigation