mba cultural policy comparison - usa, japan and canada
DESCRIPTION
This presentation aims at comparing the cultural policies of the United States, Canada, and Japan. We can see the history and culture of each country are reflected to the current policies (path dependency). Also, we can see external influences to each of the countries (punctuated equilibrium).TRANSCRIPT
PUBLIC POLICY PRESENTATION
CULTURAL POLICY AND CULTURAL COMPLEXES
HIROYASU SUDO MARCH 2012
TODAY’S NEWS
AGENDA• Issue: Arts Funding
• Countries: Canada, the US, Japan
• Situations in each country
• Cultural complex in each country
• Suggestion
ISSUE: ARTS FUNDING• Arts Funding – Public or Private
• Why? – Public Goods, Philanthropy, Diplomacy…
• Trend – Decreasing (i.e. Global Competition, The Crisis)
• ‘Creative Class’ theory -- Instrumentalism
CANADA• Objective: National Pride/ Social Cohesion/ Diversity
• History: Formed after WWII, American Influence
• Type: Public Funding is larger
• Culture: Individualistic, slightly socialistic
• Trend: Decreasing, yet the scope is broadening
THE UNITED STATES• Objective: Public Goods, Diplomacy
• History: In line with active philanthropy (Carnegie)
• Type: Private Funding is substantially larger
• Culture: Individualistic, Capitalistic (Democratic)
• Trend: Recovering from the Crisis
JAPAN• Objective: Public Goods, Preservation, Economic Growth
• History: Westernization = Modernization, WWII
• Type: Public Funding is marginal (fear of public intervention)
• Culture: Collectivist, Capitalistic
• Trend: Recovering from the Crisis, Collaboration with Private
COMPARISON
• Punctuation Equilibrium: External Influence
• Advocacy Coalition: Linear
• Path Dependency: Disconnected Evolution
• Policy tools: Direct, Indirect, Hybrid
Canada USA Japan
ObjectiveNational Pride/Social Cohesion
Economic DevelopmentPublic goods
DiplomacyPreservation
Economic Development
Policy Change PEF ACF PDF
Public/Private 27:23 13:43 6:12.2
ratio 117% 30% 49%
Culture Individualist - Socialistic Individualist - Capitalistic Collectivist - Capitalistic
CULTURE COMPLEX• Cultural Hub
• Encourage arts/culture
• Provide facilities (Theatre, Gallery, etc.)
HARBOURFRONT CENTRE• Non-profit (established as a
crown company)
• Artistic Innovation, Cultural Engagement
• 4 Theatres, 2 Galleries
• Decreasing Public Funding
• Increasing Private Funding
LINCOLN CENTER• Non-profit (most donation from Rockefeller)
• Initiated by The Mayor's Slum Clearance Committee
• Urban Renewal
• Opera house, Concert Halls, Music School
• Marginal Public Funding
ROPPONGI ART DISTRICT• Mix of Non-profit and For-profit
• Economic Development
• 3 Museums (2 Private Museums and 1 National Arts Center)
• Form the Arts Triangle
• Resulted in commercial success
CONCLUSION• Harbourfront Centre needs to be more commercial
• But cannot compromise its mission
• Could learn from the US organizations about private funds
• Programming should be aimed at ‘creative class’
• The Japan case tells that the government can support the initiative for economic growth
<Takeaways>
• Country comparison let us see a bigger picture
• This leads to deeper understanding of the issue
• Results in a better suggestion