Contenu du sommaire : Administrer la culture ?

Trends of Cultural Administration in Western Europe. In the last three decades, the ways and means of public intervention in cultural affairs have been multiplied and diversified following variable patterns in different countries. There has been an evolution in the levels of public intervention, which differ according to decentralization and federalism. There has also been an evolution of the means of intervention, because governments use new financing practices. Nowadays a new actor is emerging on the scene of cultural policy : the European Community.

The Support of Culture and New Federalism in the United States. Since the Hatch Act of 1887, and up to the end of the 1970s, federal intervention in the cultural field has considerably increased. With President Reagan's election in 1980 and his administration's action, a new policy has been implemented. The reduction of aid programs and the transfer of responsibilities from Washington to the States were called «New Federalism». The objective was to reduce the role of ail government levels in comparison to private sector, by tax reductions, budgetary cuts, giving global grants to the States and by reducing and simplifying regulations. As a consequence of this policy in the cultural field, States and cities desperately look for an increase in their resources, whereas the federal government goes on with a policy wich is reducing them.

Between Kolkhoz and Fallow Cultural Administration Problems in Central and Eastern Europe. Credits are cruelly missing for cultural institutions, because the all-State model which was inherited from the previous regime is in a deep crisis, and no private forces have emerged, which could replace the exhausted administrations. The first steps towards decentralization are hindered, in this field as in others, because of the lack of financial, technical and human resources at local level. Nevertheless, the question of competences must and can be urgently answered so as to enable the emergence of cultural policies adapted to this european new age.

The Challenge of Cultural Policy-Making in Quebec. Since the establishment of the Ministry of cultural affairs in 1961, Quebec went through a long path leading to a true cultural policy. It is a new policy, because it brings a revision of the means of public intervention : through functional decentralization of financial support to arts, linked to regional cultural development ; by transforming a managing ministry into a driving ministry ; and by the development of municipal partnership. Cultural policy will have to face govemment's new requirements such as decentralization of responsibilities and the privatisation of some of it's missions.

Public Action, Private Creation. In spite of the recent blossoming of cultural sponsoring by private business, artistic creation in France is still dominated by public action. Comparing with the IIIrd Republic only reinforces this view ; in those times public/private duality was founded on a clear and well - balanced separation between the two sectors. The present situation is more complex, and examining it shows that there is no real reason to fear the seizure of culture by the State. In fact, the wearing out of cultural democratization as a way of legitimizing public action, leads government to redefine it's role in integrating market requirements.

Towards the End of the Cultural State ? French cultural policy is frequently presented as a heavily centralized one. Yet things have evolved in recent years, leading to difficulties in understanding the political and administrative landscape of culture. There have been few institutional innovations, but the habits and regulations ruling the relationship between local authorities and central government are placed in a new context, deeply influenced by decentralization. Government has installed new cooperation procedures which are binding for ail partners. In this new pattern, State has abandonned its role of a master of ceremonies, because it is not able any more to set imperative rules and to provide substantial means on its own. So, without an institutional decentralizing reform, cultural policy is being decentralized de facto.

The Local Authorities' Role. Round Table. Representatives of governmental and local cultural administrations discuss three major themes : the state-local partnership wich is original, and specific to the cultural sector ; the extension of the local authorities' role in cultural matters ; finally the modemization of cultural institutions, their evolving status, management and control.

The Paradox of Public Management of Local Identities. Paradoxically, cultural policies in french overseas departments often converge with metropolitan ones. Public cultural offer, which looks like a more or less standardized outfit of ail kinds, is in search of national recognition. In the same way, resistances to the modernization of cultural management are as strong as in metropolitan France. Nevertheless, there are persistent local specificities, such as a heavy politicization of cultural policy and the weak institutionalization of the cultural field. Confronting these convergences and divergences brings out two major debates : the role of culture in the economy and the status of difference in the content of public action in cultural matters.

Control, Evaluation, Inspection. Control, evaluation and inspection functions are particularly acute ones for cultural affairs administration. They deal with a multiplicity of organizations more or less linked to the ministerial department. Furthermore, the mere question of administrative control is a delicate one in the context of the necessary freedom of cultural choice. This could explain the ambiguities in the legal and conceptual framework of control, evaluation and inspection functions. A better use of these functions within the Ministry of culture is subject to two conditions : development of training and a clarification of competences.

Private Sponsoring. Private sponsoring is not a way of managing culture, even if governments are sometimes tempted to look at it as additional means for financing public initiative in the cultural field. Between public funding and the market, private sponsoring can be a third sector for cultural financing. In the context of a multipolar cultural policy emerging out of the end of the «cultural State», private sponsoring can only blossom.

Year III of Private Sponsoring in Japan. Since February 1990, private sponsoring has developed with the création of «Kigyô - Mécénat - Kyôgikai», in a country where it appears as a challenge to the commercialization of culture. After a short period in the middle ages where there have been examples of big art patrons, Japan quickly drifted into exagerated westemizing in industry. Yet Japanese soul lived further behind the curtains. The development of this new partnership should enable to bridge the gap between artists and industry, even if the economie context is a difficult one.

Financing Culture in Recession Times. Some Reflections about Latin America. In Latin America, State aid is still the most current way of financing culture. But in times of recession and of scarce public resources, classical action - such as waging funds, participation of public banks, tax exemptions or deductions - are not any more enough. This leads to the search of other financing sources, especially in the private sector, with cultural producers and the public. In a depressed economic context, the question is whether cultural self-management will not be the last means of survival and of reinforcement of cultural identity.