Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Accounting for Culture

Caroline Andrew
Monica Gattinger
M. Sharon Jeannotte
et al.

Part I. The Evolution and Broadening of Cultural Policy Rationales

1. From Indicators to Governance to the Mainstream

Tools for Cultural Policy and Citizenship

Colin Mercer

Texte intégral

1The arguments presented below are designed to address a range of issues being taken up by the colloquium but, essentially, I can summarize this chapter by suggesting that there is a need to move along and up the “knowledge value chain” from data (statistics), to information (indicators), to knowledge (benchmarks), to wisdom (policy).

2We need to know more about “culture”—however we define it in local, regional, national, and global contexts—both quantitatively and qualitatively. We need to improve the quantitative baseline (cultural statistics) and the qualitative baseline (evidence on “social impacts,” the relationship between culture and quality of life, social cohesion and inclusion, etc). We need more numbers, more facts, more indicators, more benchmarks in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

3This will require a research and knowledge-development culture which is stakeholder-based in the terms suggested above in our advocacy of cultural mapping, involving both “top-down” research expertise and “bottom-up” local knowledge, expertise, and ownership. This will require great efforts in “translation” and application from the best conceptual and theoretical work in the field—in cultural studies, anthropology, development economics, economic, social and cultural geography, social theory—into policy-relevant and policy-enabling forms.

4The environmental movement has done this, partly by re-inventing the concept of “environment” (on the basis of a robust and accumulated knowledge and research base), and investing it with a strategic significance that it never had before, and partly by developing a common understanding not of what environment “is” but, rather, of how it connects and relates to how we go about our lives, live in our families, run our businesses, consume products and experiences: how, in short this thing called “the environment” relates to the sustainability of our development objectives and to the quality of our lives.

5The challenge for us, in the cultural movement, is the same. It is not simply (or even) to define “culture” in a universally acceptable form but, rather, to define its relationship—tension, conflict, reciprocity—the broader and bigger-picture issues of economic development, community regeneration, social inclusion, diversity, convivencia (learning how to live together) and, ultimately, that elusive, but measurable, quality of life.

6When we have done that then we can begin to claim that, for the cultural field, we have brought together indicators, governance, and the strategic place of culture in public policy within a unified conceptual horizon within which an enlarged and enriched concept and ambition of citizenship is the central landmark and stake.

Preamble: Citizens

7Statistics… one of the fundamental branches of the art of government.

  • 1 Report on Bibliography, Session of 22 Germinal, Year Two of the One and Indivisible Republic, foll (...)

8– The Abbé (Henri Baptiste) Grégoire1

9The Abbé Grégoire, that most enlightened and durable of the legislators of the French Revolution, and effectively the “father” of modern cultural policy, knew a thing or two. He knew that for government—and governance—in mass and proto-democratic societies, you had to know how to count. More importantly, you had to know what to count. In his case this was books, artifacts, monuments, languages, street signs, and nomenclature, the symbols and signs of the Republic, its manners, and customs. And you had to know in what context and to what ends you were counting. In his case this was “unity of idiom” for the newly formed “One and Indivisible Republic” and “Unity of the Revolution.” There was a single word for the unit, fulcrum and focus of calculation: citizen. Cultural policy, that is to say, has the strategic purpose of forming, maintaining, and “managing” citizens.

10Our ambitions two centuries later are perhaps less radical, less revolutionary, less unifying, but there is a common logic to be pursued which underscores the fundamental relationship between “culture,” “policy,” and “citizenship” and the ways in which we can both identify and evaluate this relationship by means of “indicators.”

  • 2 Colin Mercer, Towards Cultural Citizenship: Tools for Cultural Policy and Development (Hedemora, S (...)

11The aim of this chapter is essentially to map and highlight the conceptual field which does or should inform the work of building a knowledge base for the development of policy-relevant and policy-enabling indicators for cultural citizenship or, properly speaking, cultural indicators for citizenship. I do not fully engage here the array of possible indicators and/or operational issues as these are covered in my book Towards Cultural Citizenship: Tools for Cultural Policy and Development.2 Nor do I dwell for too long on the actual definition, currency, or resonance of the concept of citizenship itself, as that could become too abstract for the purposes of this chapter. Rather, just as Baudelaire (no realist!) once pragmatically said, “puisque réalisme il y a,” I’ll add “puisque citoyenneté il y a.”

  • 3 Denise Meredyth and Geoffrey Minson, Citizenship and Cultural Policy (London: Sage, 2001), xi-xii.

12It is certainly the case, as two Australian authors have recently argued, that cultural policy in general is one of the least studied but possibly most important domains for understanding what citizenship actually means and how it works. “Studies of cultural policy,” argue Meredyth and Minson, “are centrally concerned with… modes of neoliberal governance, which work between public institutions and private lives and at both national and international levels, shaping civic or civil habits, tastes and dispositions in ways that are all the more effective for not being experienced as obtrusive….”3

13This being so, and we strongly believe that it is—increasingly so in a globalized world—the question of “resourcing citizenries” becomes very important and strategic. At the beginning of the nineteenth century (when cultural policy first became an “agenda item” for the institutions of governance), as at the beginning of the twenty-first century (when culture is becoming newly strategic in its connections with industry, with communications, with identity and simply “living together”), citizenship is what cultural policy is, or should be, about.

The Case and the Propositions

14Are cultural indicators of citizenship therefore possible? If they are, and there is a strong case for this, then there are six propositions informing this chapter which relate to the three core themes—indicators, governance, and rebuilding the case for culture—of this book:


151. Indicators need to rest on a robust knowledge base, both quantitative and qualitative, which is constantly refreshed by research, both pure and applied. We can call this cultural mapping.

162. Statistics are not indicators. They only become such when transformed—or when value is added—through a route map of policy. We can call this cultural planning.


173. Indicators only become “tools” for policy and governance when they are firmly related to or embedded in a policy framework or strategy from which they gain their meaning and currency. There are no universal cultural indicators independent of these specific and operational contexts of governance.

184. Governance is not the same as government. It describes, rather, our joint and uneven terms of engagement with the complex field of economic, human, social and cultural power relations in which we are all “stakeholders.” Engagement with the concept and reality of governance means moving beyond the more traditional dichotomies of State and People, Government and Community, etc.—a new political rationality, that is.

Rebuilding the Case for Culture—or Mainstreaming Culture

195. Rebuilding the “case for culture” or, in other words, mainstreaming culture, as a central public policy issue, will entail subjecting culture and the cultural field to the same rigorous forms of research, analysis, and assessment as any other policy domain. This will entail—to return to the first proposition—developing indicators or suites of indicators which are integrated (and share a plausible common currency) with economic, social, environmental, and other policy domains. Knowledge of the cultural field, that is to say, will need to be able to “walk and talk” along with its policy neighbours.

206. There are a number of policy catalysts which can enable this work of integration and mobilization and these include sustainable development, economic regeneration, social cohesion, cultural diversity and, especially, the mother of all catalysts: quality of life.

Indicators: “Measuring Culture” or Cultural Mapping?

21On the issue of the “knowledge base” for cultural indicators and its need for constant refreshing by both conceptual and quantitative research it may be useful to cite a recent example from the United States, that of the Arts and Cultural Indicators in Community Building Project conducted by the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.

22This project sought to develop indicators through a better understanding of arts and culture, cultural institutions, artists in inner-city neighbourhoods and community-building contexts, and to assess the existing data collection practices among the community-based and mainstream arts and culture organizations. According to the project’s principal researcher, a Toronto-based teacher and consultant, Dr. Arnold Love:

  • Mainstream definitions of “the arts” exclude the culture and values of many groups that live in the inner city and many expressions of artistic creativity have not been understood as art or culture;
  • Arts and culture should not be viewed only as products to be consumed but also as processes and systems that are part of the life of the community;
  • Cultural participation should be measured along a “continuum” of cultural participation and not only as audience participation;
  • Cultural activities are found in mainstream cultural venues and also in many other community locations; and
  • “Indigenous venues of validation” must be understood by using ethnographic research methods before appropriate indicator categories can be created.4

23This example is useful insofar as it points—prior to the actual process of data collection and analysis—to the necessity for appropriate and conceptually informed mapping of the specific cultural field in question in order to determine, so to speak, what actually counts as culture to the stakeholder communities—the “indigenous venues of validation.” There is a “qualitative baseline” which needs to be engaged, that is to say, before the quantitative baseline can be constructed.

24Cultural statistics and indicators, in this context, cannot simply be “downloaded” or imported from available data sets, no matter how robust these may be. Certainly local, regional, national, and international data on employment in the cultural sector, participation rates, family, or household expenditure, etc., will form an important quantitative baseline for any such investigation but this is necessary but not sufficient for the task of cultural mapping.

25The quantitative baseline will need to be greatly enhanced by attention to the qualitative baseline of what these activities, participation rates, expenditure patterns, etc., actually mean to the stakeholder communities and how they might contribute, for example, to human, social, and cultural capital and capacity building, to identity and sense of place, to “social impacts.” To citizenship in its fullest sense, that is.

26To agree on a framework and agenda for cultural mapping in this sense, we need to be attentive to—and informed by—the special contours, features, and textures of the ground that we are surveying. This will require agreement both on appropriate and sensitive tools and approaches and on the stakeholders to be involved in the mapping process.

27On both these counts, there is an urgent need for new forms of collaboration and cross-fertilization between research, community, industry, and government sectors. The research sector often has the competencies in the application and refinement of conceptual frameworks and methodologies; the community sector often has the necessary “local knowledge”; the industry and government sectors, in turn, tend to be concerned with sectoral or departmental objectives but, of course, have powers and resources for policy implementation beyond those of other actors. None of these sectors, on their own, has the capacity to undertake cultural mapping in its fullest sense. Cultural mapping is neither simply “pure” nor simply “applied” but, rather, is stakeholder research.

28Cultural mapping can provide both a catalyst and a vehicle for bringing together these diverse interests and stakeholders (and thus moving towards cultural planning). Marcia Langton, an Australian Aboriginal academic, author, and activist advocates the approach in the following terms:

  • 5 Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Valung Cultures: Recognising Indigenous Cultures as a Value (...)

Cultural mapping involves the identification and recording of an area’s indigenous cultural resources for the purposes of social, economic and cultural development. Through cultural mapping, communities and their constituent interest groups can record their cultural practices and resources, as well as other intangibles such as their sense of place and social value. Subjective experiences, varied social values and multiple readings and interpretations can be accommodated in cultural maps, as can more utilitarian “cultural inventories.” The identified values of place and culture can provide the foundation for cultural tourism planning and eco-tourism strategies, thematic architectural planning and cultural industries development.5

29This approach clearly provides a fruitful context for the convergence of academic and other specialist research skills, local knowledge, industry and government interests, and a useful example of the sort of multidisciplinary and cross sectoral collaboration in research which is going to be so important for both enhancing traditional cultural resources and values and developing them in the context of the creative industries.

30Cultural mapping seen in these terms responds to urgent new and integrally connected issues in the global cultural and communications economy and requires us to broaden our purview of the place of local cultural resources in that context, both recognizing and enhancing the relations between the “local” and the “global.”

31In our research and policy development, we will need to be more attentive to the complex uses and negotiations of cultural resources—artefacts, ideas, images, activities, places, institutions—which make up the cultural field. This will require much greater collaboration between research, community, industry, and government sectors to the mutual benefit of each, and there is some hard but useful work of “translation” to be done between these in order to arrive at a workable suite of indicators for sustainable cultural development.

32In developing an agenda for such “cultural mapping” we will need to be very attentive to the fact that the ground has been well-surveyed, albeit from rather patrician heights, before and that we need to be attentive to the following issues:

  • The need to develop a much broader and more inclusive approach to cultural resources and to recognize that these resources are not just commodities but also sets of relations and systems of classification. That is to say we need an active and use-oriented definition of resources accounting for the ways in which people and communities interact with and negotiate them.
  • The importance of developing methodologies not only for identifying these resources but also for assessing how people interact with them and how, at the local and community level, they “hang together” and become meaningful in fields of interaction, negotiation, and consumption which often fall below the horizon of intelligibility of more traditional approaches to culture or beyond the remit of purely quantitative indicators.
  • In developing this approach, there needs to be a new compact and relationship between “local knowledge” and tactics on the one hand, and the larger and strategic prerogatives and imperatives of cultural policy and service delivery on the other. This is a matter not simply of the adjustment of existing settings but also of the production of new forms of knowledge and resultant indicators through inclusive and integrated research agendas. Appropriate indicators, in this context, can provide the conditions for an effective “handshake” between local needs and interests and broader policy and strategic agendas.
  • 6 The cultural value chain or cycle has been used to analyze the key stages in the overall system of (...)
  • 7 Colin Mercer, Joining the Dots: An Audit and Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Cultural Sec (...)

33In the end, of course, what we are confronted with in the development of a research agenda for cultural mapping is a theoretical horizon within which it becomes possible to reconcile a broad and inclusive approach to the forms of production in the cultural field with an equally broad approach to the forms and modalities of consumption—the cultural value production chain or the “culture cycle.”6 Indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, will be needed along this chain and throughout this cycle. A “template” which can act as a “floor plan” for indicators of this type, developed in the context of an English regional cultural strategy and research framework,7 is presented in Appendix A.

From Indicators to Governance: Cultural Planning

34As we begin to evaluate and understand the moments in the value chain or “culture cycle,” and the points in between—distribution, circulation, promotion and knowledge, delivery mechanisms, access—we can also start to recognize the inherent connectedness of the cultural domain with others such as the nature of our “lifestyles” and quality of life, the quality of our built and natural environments, our capacities for creativity and innovation (our “soft” and “creative infrastructure”), and our ability to educate and train for diversity.

35What might this mean in the context of “indicators for governance?” One answer to this lies in a key tool that we advocate in Towards Cultural Citizenship: “cultural capital assessment” or “community cultural assessment.” This is a research tool that is aimed not simply at evaluating the culture of a community, or region, or nation but also at locating culture in the context of sustainable development. As Amareswar Galla said, this is with the aim of:

  • 8 Amareswar Galla, “Culture in Development: Subaltern Perspectives,” (paper presented to the Stockho (...)

[M]ore sustainable and vibrant communities, more cohesive community networks, greater community confidence and direction founded in a sense of self and place, and an increased community capacity for holistically addressing its own needs…. It requires an inclusive framework that recognises the cultural aspirations of different sections of the community, including groups that may otherwise be marginalised culturally, socially and economically.8

36Positioning culture in this way is crucial, according to Galla, and based on his wide field experience in Australia, Vietnam, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere, in order to:

  • Strengthen and protect the cultural resource base for creative expression and practice;
  • Engage the whole community in valuing and participating in cultural expression and appreciation;
  • Provide relevant community infrastructure for the support of cultural activities; and
  • Develop the economic framework for cultural production and promotion.
  • 9 Galla, Ibid., 4.

37Crucially, for Galla—and in line with many of the arguments developed in Towards Cultural Citizenship, this is with the aim of developing “community grounded creative industries [which] could enable expression of culture that acts to affirm and celebrate community cultural development.” It further suggests the need for “mediators of developmental projects… to move away from the binary opposition of traditional and contemporary to a dynamic developmental continuum of stakeholder community groups.”9

  • 10 Another powerful example is provided by researchers who have studied rock music as a form of cultu (...)

38This argument about moving away from the “binary opposition of traditional and contemporary” and towards a more dynamic and interactive relationship between these cultural “poles” is crucial in the development of a cultural/creative industries agenda and momentum which will enable us to understand that a cultural policy can abo be an economic policy without necessary contradiction. The World Music phenomenon (as it is known in the West/North) is an example of how this binary opposition between traditional and contemporary has been thrown into question and produced benefits for traditional/indigenous communities and creators from Mali, Senegal, Togo, South Africa, Cuba, and many other countries. The Buena Vista Social Club and Reggae from the Caribbean and, indeed, African American Blues and Rhythm and Blues stand as a testament to this potential in more developed parts of the world.10

39Indigenous and Aboriginal visual arts and crafts from many parts of the developing world provide another example of how distinctive local content can enter into the broader cultural economy and marketplace. There are, of course, important policy and regulatory issues to be addressed in this context relating to the local control and management of cultural resources, their exploitation and, of necessity, their sustainability. These concern the ownership and management of intellectual property, the domination of many of the means of production and distribution by major transnational corporations and the power of consumer tastes and expenditure in the North/West. But the point is that this is a “developmental continuum” and, as the saying goes: you have to be in it to win it.

40To be “in it” it is important to have a big picture of—and to know—the cultural value production chain—or “culture cycle”—from creation through production and distribution to consumption, and to identify and define policy measures which will enable an equitable place in that chain defined through intellectual property rights, fair dealing, and negotiated global conventions and instruments through agencies such as unesco (and the wider un system), wipo and wto and, increasingly, regional bilateral and multilateral agreements.

41Developing countries tend to be “content rich” insofar as they have cultural expressions, values, and products which, in a globalized cultural economy, the developed world wants to see, listen to, feel, and experience. They are strong, that is to say, at the beginning of the cultural cycle or value production chain but weak in the infrastructure and capacity for production, distribution, marketing, and the securing of intellectual property rights. But recognizing that there is a “chain” in which value is added at every stage to the original creation or content is the first step in both recognizing and engaging with the strategic context in which culture is now to be understood: as both local and global, as both “authentic” and able to be shared on agreed terms. This calls for an equivalent value chain of indicators.

42To “win it” is a longer term task in a context where, in the global cultural economy there are only (subject to occasional variations) about three net exporters of cultural product—the USA, Japan, and the UK. This is both a threat and a challenge and it is the challenge with which I am more concerned here. The challenge is that of a forward-looking and strategic engagement with culture rather than a purely defensive posture which wants to defend and protect culture as it is.

43There is an emphasis here on the productive cultural capacity of communities and individuals not just to celebrate and affirm their culture but to actually enter into the cultural and creative industries by recognizing, mapping, and exploiting their own indigenous cultural resources on their own terms. This is an invitation to the training and positioning of socio-economic and socio-cultural entrepreneurs as an outcome of projects rather than simply “beneficiaries.”

44The development of active producers (and reproducers) of culture is surely an important step (and indicator) in both building and developing the cultural resource base of communities which at the same time offers a way of addressing poverty, consolidating cultural diversity and providing conditions for sustainable development in the cultural field.

45Cultural planning does not mean “the planning of culture” but, rather, ensuring that the cultural element, cultural considerations, culture tout court, are there at every stage of the planning and development process. This is what we mean by bringing culture in from the margins and into the mainstream.

46If culture is about identities, lifestyles, conduct, ethics, governance, and the ways in which we go about our daily lives, this should not be too difficult to countenance. If we agree to have policies about culture or link culture to development objectives then we are also consenting, explicitly or implicitly, to a logic of planning. Planning, that is to say, is not just about “hard infrastructure” but also about soft and creative infrastructure: people and what they can and cannot do.

47If it sounds odd to add “planning” to “culture” then that is because we have allowed planning to be unduly narrowed in its definition and remit and not because culture cannot be touched by the instrumentalist ambitions of planning. A few comments are necessary in this context.

  • Planning is not a physical science but a human science. The Scottish founder of town and regional planning in the early twentieth century, Patrick Geddes, insisted that all planning must take account of the three fundamental coordinates of Place-Work-Folk. That is to say that planners need to be—or be informed by—anthropologists, economists, and geographers and not just draftsmen. They need to know how people live, work, play, and relate to their environment. Lewis Mumford, the great twentieth-century urban planner and theorist in North America, also saw culture at the very centre of planning as a field of study and professional practice.
  • Cultural planning is place-based cultural policy. As Greg Baeker puts it: While many different definitions and understandings of cultural planning can be found to exist in other jurisdictions, a core characteristic shared by all is the concern with how the identification, monitoring, and utilization of cultural resources contribute to the integrated development of place. It is the focus on place that distinguishes cultural planning from the sectoral approaches favoured by cultural policy.11
  • It is crucial to survey before planning.” We need to be able to fold and integrate the complex histories, textures and memories of environments and their populations into the planning process. We need to do some cultural mapping—tracing people’s memories and visions and values—before we start the planning.
  • Cultures and communities produce citizens. Our fundamental emphasis in planning should not simply be on the production and development of goods and commodities but on people, on citizens.

48Cultural planning must be able to address the role of traditional arts and heritage resources but must also be able to address a developmental logic in the form of, for example, cultural tourism strategies, in cultural industry development, in leisure, and recreation planning, and it must make the connections between all of these.

49It must address the issues of identity, autonomy, and sense of place but it must also be outward looking and part of a more general program for community development.

50Cultural planning must be able to establish and maintain a real and effective policy equilibrium between “internal” quality and texture of life and “external” factors relating to tourism, attractiveness to potential residents and visitors (including inward investment by large and small businesses). It must be said that the latter has tended to drive thinking and priorities in many cities over the past decade, a situation that must be contested. It must recognize and frequently rediscover the wealth of cultural resources which are already there in communities but which haven’t formed part of a community’s cultural, social, or economic profile.

51Cultural planning must be based upon the principle of a fully consultative and rigorous process of community cultural assessment or cultural mapping. Whatever you call it, the simple principle is that you cannot plan cultural resources unless you know what is there and what their potential is. You cannot guess at this and you cannot base your evaluation simply on arts resources (which is worse than guessing because it carries so many points of discrimination).

52A community cultural assessment involves both consultation and a rigorous process of detailed research—quantitative and qualitative—into diverse cultural resources and diverse cultural needs.

53There is a potentially “virtuous circle” between the assessment and audit functions of cultural mapping (indicators) and the operational objectives of cultural planning (governance). This will require new tools, new partnerships, new funding and resources, new ways of working at international, national, regional, and local levels.

Into the Mainstream: Culture as Capital

54Cultural mapping and cultural capital assessment in combination with related forms of social capital assessment are ways of evaluating this resource base and identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for sustainable development. It should proceed in the direction of the four sets of questions posed by Helen Gould, Director of the London-based cultural development NGO Creative Exchange:

  1. What are the community’s cultural resources and assets?
    • What are its key products, events, organizations, individuals, buildings and special sites, indigenous skills, cuisine, and forms of expression (music, dance, or visual arts)?
    • Who uses or creates cultural resources and how do they benefit the community?
    • Which local cultural resource people or organizations help deliver social capital?
  2. What cultural values underpin that community and its way of life?
    • What are the traditional power structures, hierarchies, and decision-making channels?
    • How does the community see time, nutrition, spirituality, the environment, symbols, and images?
    • How does the community communicate and what values are communicated?
    • How widely are cultural values shared? Are there several sets of values at work?
  3. How can the development of social capital work with cultural values and resources?
    • What are the cultural values which benefit or hinder the development of social capital?
    • How can cultural processes promote equitable relationships and foster inclusive approaches which enable all sectors of the community to participate and benefit?
    • How can culture build confidence, skills, capacities, self-esteem, and local pride?
    • How can culture promote cross-community dialogue and build new relationships?
  4. How can cultural capital and its impact on the development of social capital be evaluated?
    • How does investment in cultural capital impact on other forms of social capital—economic and social benefits and drawbacks?
    • How do attitudes towards the community and other sectors of the community change?
    • What additional skills and capacities have been achieved and what impact did these have on community sustainability?
    • How has cultural capital enhanced relationships, built trust and created new networks?12

55Answers to these questions will certainly provide important “indicators” for sustainable cultural development but they also provide a sound basis for moving forward in a context of cultural mapping and cultural planning. They mean taking culture seriously as both a “resource” and as capital (a resource which has been invested) and we should not be afraid of the possible historical dissonance of these two terms if we are serious about talking about cultural development and cultural industries in the same breath and also, hopefully, within the same policy settings, to encourage growth, diversity, and sustainability. This is the sort of knowledge, producing a range of possible indicators, connected to local, regional, and national policy frameworks which can enable us to get culture into the mainstream where it belongs.



The core argument presented here has to do with the central objective of building a robust knowledge and evidence base for “culture” in the same way that the environmental movement did it for “the environment.” This is a concept which, just twenty or thirty years ago, simply meant the land, the landscape, or that which is not human or social. Now we understand more fully that it is the relationships between people and the environment which are crucial and the concept of “environment” has been invested with a strategic and political significance it never had before. We need to do the same for culture.

In understanding the relationships between people and culture we will also be learning more about the formative role of culture in constructing, understanding—and sometimes contesting—versions of citizenship and enhancing our definitions and practices of citizenship beyond the formal and legal definitions.

In principle, building the knowledge base, recognizing the inherent connectedness between culture and citizenship—the ways we live our lives, earn our livings, develop our lifestyles and identities, forms of conduct and behaviour—will then become more central to public policy and we will have indicators, like we have “common sense” in this field, as in the environmental and other fields.13

Appendix A: An Indicators “Floor Plan”

Appendix A: An Indicators “Floor Plan”


1 Report on Bibliography, Session of 22 Germinal, Year Two of the One and Indivisible Republic, followed by the Decree of the National Convention (1794).

2 Colin Mercer, Towards Cultural Citizenship: Tools for Cultural Policy and Development (Hedemora, Sweden: Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and Gidlunds Forlag, 2002).

3 Denise Meredyth and Geoffrey Minson, Citizenship and Cultural Policy (London: Sage, 2001), xi-xii.

4 Arnold Love, cited in Tony Bennett, Differing Diversities: Transversal Study on the Theme of Cultural Diversity (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2001), 96-97.

5 Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Valung Cultures: Recognising Indigenous Cultures as a Valued Part of Australian Heritage (Canberra: Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1994), 19-20.

6 The cultural value chain or cycle has been used to analyze the key stages in the overall system of cultural creation, production, distribution, consumption, etc. The value of the chain is to help identify different stages where different kinds of intervention could be made-with the goal of making the system work better and deliver better results. The value chain also helps offset the traditional focus on specific art forms or disciplines that has dominated cultural policy making.

7 Colin Mercer, Joining the Dots: An Audit and Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Cultural Sector Research in the South West of England (Exeter: Culture South West, 2003).

8 Amareswar Galla, “Culture in Development: Subaltern Perspectives,” (paper presented to the Stockholm + 5 conference, Swedish National Commission for unesco, Stockholm, 4 May, 2003), 4.

9 Galla, Ibid., 4.

10 Another powerful example is provided by researchers who have studied rock music as a form of cultural production. They point out that while rock music shares some basic characteristics—repeating chord structures, specific common rhythms, etc.—these are nonetheless “adapted” in different cultural contexts through lyrics, specific themes and subject matter, etc. They conclude, paradoxically, that the very form of music often characterized as a principal culprit in “homogenizing mass culture,” may in fact be a very powerful “carrier of culture and identity.

11 Greg Baeker, Beyond Garrets and Silos: Concepts, Trends and Developments in Cultural Planning (paper produced for the Municipal Cultural Planning Project, 2002), 23.

12 Helen Gould, “Cultural Capital and Social Capital,” in ed., Francois Matarasso, Recognising Culture.-. Briefing Papers on Culture and Development (Gloucester: Comedia, 2001): 74,

13 The “indicator floor plan” in Appendix A provides a matrix and “thinking machine” for enabling the connections to be made through appropriate indicators.

Table des illustrations

Titre Appendix A: An Indicators “Floor Plan”
Fichier image/jpeg, 165k


Managing director of Cultural Capital Ltd, a company specializing internationally in strategic research and development for the cultural sector. Formerly he was the U.K’s first professor of cultural policy and director of the Cultural Policy and Planning Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University. From 1984-1998 he worked in Australia where he was director of the Institute for Cultural Policy Studies and associate professor in Cultural Policy and History at Griffith University. He is co-author of The Cultural Planning Handbook and many other publications in the field of cultural policy and cultural studies and has been responsible for a number of urban, regional and community cultural mapping, policy and planning frameworks which repositioned the arts and cultural resources in strategic and mainstream contexts. Most recently he has been project director and author of the book Towards Cultural Citizenship: Tools for Cultural Policy and Development, commissioned by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (sida) and published in November 2002

© Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa Press, 2005

Conditions d’utilisation :