the ‘value’ of europe the political economy of culture in the european community 2011

7/28/2019 The Value of Europe The Political Economy of Culture in the European Community 2011

1/24

This article was downloaded by: [187.167.19.220]On: 23 March 2013, At: 22:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

GeopoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fgeo20

The Value of Europe: The Political

Economy of Culture in the EuropeanCommunityEliot Tretter

a

a

Department of Geography and the Environment, University ofTexas at Austin, TX, USA

Version of record first published: 14 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Eliot Tretter (2011): The Value of Europe: The Political Economy of Culture inthe European Community, Geopolitics, 16:4, 926-948

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2011.554465

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2011.554465http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fgeo20


2/24

Geopolitics, 16:926948, 2011Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1465-0045 print / 1557-3028 onlineDOI: 10.1080/14650045.2011.554465

The Value of Europe: The Political Economyof Culture in the European Community

ELIOT TRETTERDepartment of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas

at Austin, TX, USA

During the 1970s and 1980s the cultural sector became oneof the primary motors for wealth creation in the EuropeanCommunity. At the European and national scales, a group of actors helped transform Europes vast array of practices and ser-vices (tourism, heritage, books, audio-visual products, etc.) intocultural industries and pushed the EC to develop a common cul-tural policy to support these industries. Documenting these changesat the European scale, I argue that the perceived impact of cul-tural policy for particular national economic competitiveness wasalso significant. Italian MEPs and members of Italys national gov-

ernment were especially important, as they fought to protect thecountrys historical heritage and promote tourism. France pushedthe strongest and I show how that countrys efforts were primarilyintended to protect its audio-visual and publishing industries fromthe EC internal markets liberalisation policies, which were vocally

supported by Britain because they would have served that countysnational economic interests.

The Community is certainly the best qualified to provide responses tothe question of what our culture role should be in the world. Europe[i.e., European Community] mustnt exist as a simple tool of power in anindustrial plan, but must affirm itself as a model without precedent in thehistory of our civilization. What has impeded this goal is the reluctance ofcitizens to acknowledge the legitimacy and the possibility of an economiccommunity with common values in which they are engaged and to whichthey are inextricably connected.

Simone Veil, Former President of the European Parliament.1

Address correspondence to Eliot Tretter, University of Texas at Austin, Departmentof Geography and the Environment, A3100, Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

926


3/24

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC 927

INTRODUCTION

Veil, like many so-called European federalists, was expressing a senti-ment about the European Community: It had to become more than an

economic institution. While some Europeans may have held this idea fora long time, in the 1980s, European intellectuals and politicians, partic-ularly those whose power was rooted at the European (throughout thispaper Europe/European will always refers to the Europe of the EuropeanCommunity) scale, increasingly suggested that a genuinely pan-Europe cul-ture tied the newly emerging European citizens together and that theyshould make their new state of reference the institutions of the EC.2

How the development of a common European cultural policy relates tothe creation of a pan-European identity is often reflected in academic stud-ies on the Communitys (Unions) cultural policy, where authors have paid

specific attention to how cultural policy redresses Europes chronic identitycrisis, underwrites the further integration of the EU, and preserves regionaldiversity.3 In varying ways, the EC has tried to promote, both directly andindirectly, the cultural and territorial cohesion of the Community, apartfrom or on top of the cultural sector. The Communitys cultural policy,however, has also been advanced in conjunction with economic policy,i.e., the economics of audio-visual works, book publishing, tourism, small-artisanship, etc., and legal economic considerations about copyrights or

workers protection, which have not been the subject of much academicinquiry.4 Many of the EC statutes, court decisions, memorandums, etc.,

related to cultural policy, like other sectoral policies, have served to promotethe economic innovation and competitiveness of the European culturalsector.

Significant changes in the geopolitical economic environment duringthe 1970s and 1980s are reflected in the ECs concern for the cultural sector.On the one hand, many member states economies, which had sufferedfrom stagflation throughout the 1970s, were facing growing competitivepressure from abroad, particularly from Japan and the USA. EC integrationhad been stagnant throughout much of the 1970s, but the economic integra-

tion of the Community accelerated rapidly during the 1980s, as EC memberstates attempted to take advantage of potential gains from the enlargementof a homogenous internal market for investment and production.5 On theother hand, developed nations were undergoing a macro-structural transitionfrom industrial to post-industrial economies, which resulted in significantgrowth in the cultural industries.6 Among other things, post-industrial activ-ities and services included copyrights, entertainment, advertising, tourism,design, telecommunications, and other knowledge-intensive production andsymbolically oriented services that were replacing older industrial practicesas the primary motors of wealth creation. As developed nations became

more and more tied to cultural industries for their economic fortunes, many


4/24

928 Eliot Tretter

regions and cities in the EC experienced some of the starkest global changes,with some formerly core industrial centres undergoing nearly wholesale spa-tial and social restructuring.7 To facilitate this transition, ensure nationalcompetitiveness, and continue innovation in the cultural sector, the gov-

ernments of European states implemented various national policies andstrategies.8 The early growth of the Communitys involvement in culturereflects both of these trends. Supranationally, the EC was mandated topromote regional competitiveness and an integrated market, and althoughthe Community lacked legal standing (competency), supranational actorsincreasingly sought to intervene, in a variety of ways, in the cultural sector.National actors also tried to shape the architecture of the newly emergingregional cultural policy framework and block or support different EC inter-

ventions, with an eye toward how these actions would affect the changingconstitution of their domestic economies.

Theoretically, my study is largely drawn from Littoz-Monnet, whosework is sensitive to geographical scale, or a multi-level approach toEuropean governance, and is largely an actor- and interest-based orienta-tion to how policy is formed.9 Littoz-Monnet contends that various actorsused the Communitys venues to support their own interests and lock downtheir own policy preferences, but the behaviour of these actors can onlybe explained by looking at the growing power of the Communitys institu-tions in developing policies that affected national actors policy preferences.Moreover, her studies are different from other studies on the developmentof the ECs cultural policy because of the attention she pays to economics.

She is mainly concerned with differing national policy approaches anddisagreements over how cultural policy was being transferred onto theEuropean scale, and I would add to her analysis the importance of nationaleconomic competitiveness, which was largely reflected in how differentcoalitions of actors sought to respond to the development of cultural pol-icy in different ways. While Littoz-Monnet astutely points out the specificalignment of member-states that backed different Community responses tocultural policy, I would go further and emphasise the perceived or realeconomic benefits to be earned by the member states. In some cases,

national and European actors were fishing for economic benefits from theCommunity in the form of intergovernmental transfers, but in other cases,policy prescriptions were being sought that were designed to help nationalindustries or workers.

Over the past thirty years, the vast literature on the cultural economy hassuggested there are complex links between cultural industries and culture.Some scholars have noted how increased investment in cultural heritageand infrastructure might increase peoples identification and concern abouttheir cultural identity.10 Others point out that place-specific cultural prac-tices, sometimes based upon the selective revalorisation of a past tradition,

inhere in cultural products to form a kind of local monopoly or brand that is


5/24


crucial for economic and regional development.11 What these studies makeclear is that the line between the economic and the cultural is tenuous, and

what they suggest is that the forging of a common European cultural spacecould be understood as a way to enhance the feeling of being a member

of the EC and increase the value of European cultural assets in produc-tion and consumption. To be sure, the gradual Europeanisation of culturalpolicy was the result of the Communitys increasing claims to monopolisingEuropean space and history, a fortiori, its culture; however, it also representsa significant development in economic and social policy that facilitated theintensification of the trade in signs, symbols, images, and design-intensiveand knowledge-based industries.

The following paper begins by outlining how culture and cultural policywere conceptualised in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1970s is of particular sig-nificance because, as I describe, two parallel ways of characterising culture

(one economic and the other anthropological) emerged within the context ofthe Community and became increasingly blurred. As the growing economicimportance of cultural industries during the 1980s demanded attention fromthe European Community, the Commission sought to intervene into culturalaffairs on (purely) economic grounds. In many cases, however, the eco-nomic rationale offered by the Commission merely justified interventionsinto non-economic areas, and cultural policy often operated as a tool topromote a common European identity. However, many of the most impor-tant developments in cultural policy were spearheaded in the EuropeanParliament by Italian MEPs, who, in contravention to the literature, seem tohave been motivated primarily by social and economic considerations, not aconcern for a common European identity. My argument that cultural policydeveloped, in large measure, for economic reasons is further bolstered byturning to the debates about cultural policy within the Council of Ministers,particularly the significant discussions around book pricing and audio-visualpolicy. I argue that the development of cultural policy was, more oftenthan not, related to particular economic concerns, especially those of Italy,Greece, France, and Britain. It is important to stress that during the periodunder consideration, the Community did not have legal sanction to intervene

in cultural affairs. It would only be granted this authority in 1993. As a con-sequence, the cases of new transnational mechanisms for the redistributionof resources through intergovernmental transfers, regulations, and subsidieshave remained significantly underexplored.

The primary data collected for this paper comes from research doneat various libraries, particularly the European University Institute in Fiesole,Italy, which is one of the largest archives on European integration. Most ofmy sources I draw upon in English with some limited use of French sources.I relied largely on primary documents, such as European Commissionreports, European Parliament debates, European Court of Justice rulings, and


6/24

930 Eliot Tretter

the statements by the governments of member states available in English.During the period under investigation, the EC consisted of the followingten countries: France, Britain, Ireland, Greece, Luxemburg, Denmark, theNetherlands, Belgium, West Germany, and Italy; Portugal and Spain joined

near the end of the study in 1986. I was not able to investigate primarydocuments from EC countries and their governments because of a mix offinancial, time, and linguistic constraints. Additionally, much of the researchcomes from secondary sources available in English, such as newspapersand magazines, particularly the wire service Agence Europe (Europe), whichis a private international news-press service that has reported the affairsof the European Community since 1953. Europe is widely considered oneof the most extensive sources for information on the economic and polit-ical integration of the European Community, in part because much of theinformation it publishes is not available in any other public record.

CULTURE IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: EUROPEANCULTURAL IDENTITY, CULTURAL INDUSTRIES, AND THE

RECONCEPTUALISATION OF CULTURE

Cultural policy was not originally considered an integral part of theprogramme for European integration. The 1957 Treaty of Rome, whichestablished the European Economic Community, mostly outlined provisionsfor the freer circulation of goods through the elimination of restrictions onimports among its signatory member states. The preamble did declare thatthe Community was determined to lay the foundations of an ever closerunion among the peoples of Europe, and while it did not mention thatEuropeans might someday come to have a common cultural union, it didnot rule out the possibility. Moreover, the treaty made a special exemp-tion for the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic orarchaeological value.

By the late 1970s, a growing portion of the economy was the cultural

sector, which included telecommunications, book dealing, audio-visualworks, copyrights, tourism, hotels, tourist services of various kinds, the pri-vate art market, and the work of specialised artisans. In part, as a responseto the growth of these industries and the perceived need to solve prob-lems such as art theft and cross-national differences in conditions for cultural

workers, the Communitys role in cultural affairs grew, and EC CommissionerRobert Gregoire even noted that the Commission could not hold aloof fromthe cultural sector even if it wished to.12

At the same time, European culture was also being used in theCommunity, in the sense expressed by Simone Veil, to refer to a so-

called shared set of values and norms held by Europeans that however


7/24


ill-defined should become embodied in the newly formed institutions ofthe Community.13 However, while there were many who believed that theinstitutions of the Community should be stewards for preserving and/orenhancing a common European culture, many others did not, and they

objected to the European Communitys involvement in cultural affairs.14

Furthermore, the way culture was understood underwent significantchanges in the 1970s, as many intellectuals and politicians, such as Michel deCerteau, Hans Georg Steltzer, Walter Scheel, Jack Lang, Raymond Williams,Hugh Jenkins, Melina Mercouri, and many more, sought to reconceptualiseculture and break down the distinction between high and low culture, adistinction that was being further eroded by the development of the cultureindustries (e.g., print and broadcast media, recorded music, design, privateart markets, digital technology, art, and cultural tourism).15 A EuropeanCommission paper from 1977 makes this point:

Whilst culture used to be limited to literature, music, and the plastic arts,to the cultural heritage and the so-called higher or noble genres, itis now reckoned to include genres which were previously consideredminor or popular, that it is situated in the present as much as in the past,and that it comprises, in addition to the aesthetic side, i.e., literature,music, plastic arts, a scientific side (science, technology), a physical side(sports, open-air life) and a social side: man in his working environment,in the context of everyday living, the economy and politics.16

The expansion of the term culture to include these less noble genresis important for two reasons: (1) it provided the economic rationale forthe Community to develop a cultural policy; (2) it made it much harder tocharacterise exactly what it meant to promote European culture. Take thecomments of former Commission President Jacques Delors in 1985, in hisfirst address to the European Parliament:

The culture industry will tomorrow be one of the biggest industries, acreator of wealth and jobs. Under the terms of the Treaty, we do nothave the resources to implement a cultural policy; but we are going

to try to tackle it along economic lines. It is not simply a question oftelevision programmes. We have to build a powerful European cultureindustry that will enable us to be in control of both the medium and itscontent, maintaining our standards of civilisation, and encouraging thecreative people amongst us.17

Note how Delors was able to suggest that European cultural policy wasimportant for the economic growth of the culture industry; therefore, heargued, it not only fell within the Communitys mandated province, but italso had significant implications for the development of European social and

cultural cohesion.


8/24

932 Eliot Tretter

THE ATTEMPT TO CREATE A EUROPEAN CULTURAL IDENTITY:THE DELORS COMMISSION, THE ADONNINO COMMITTEE,

RIPA DI MEANA

In 1985 several significant changes occurred within the EuropeanCommission that affected the development of a Community cultural pol-icy. First, although it lacked legal jurisdiction (competence) to codify acultural policy, the Directorate-General X, Information, Communication, andCulture (a division of the European Commissions independent civil service)

was established to develop European-wide solutions to problems in cul-tural affairs. Second, Jacques Delors became the president of the EuropeanCommission, a position he would hold for three terms until 1995. Delors iscredited with helping to establish two major institutional reforms that codi-fied the legal framework for the internal market and significantly expanded

the authority of the European Commission and Courts in economic andsocial policy: the Single European Act of 1986 (the first major reform of theCommunity since 1957) and the Treaty of the European Union. Noticeablymore interested in addressing the role of the Commission in handling culturalissues during his first term (19851988), Delors was ultimately successful atsecuring the legal basis for intervention into cultural affairs in what wouldbecome the European Union.

Additionally, in 1985, the final report of the ad hoc Committee ona Peoples Europe, also known as the Adonnino Committee, was deliv-ered to the European Council. The committee, named after its chairperson,Italian Christian Democrat MEP Pietro Adonnino, had been formed in 1984(before Delors was president of the Commission) to offer measures that

would help strengthen the Communitys identity and facilitate an internallyborderless EC. Among its proposals were creating a European Communityemblem, a European anthem (now Ode to Joy), drivers licences, pass-ports, stamps, museums, foundations, logos, a Europe Day, a lottery, and acampaign for a Peoples Europe.18 It is noteworthy that the report linkedthe need to develop a European culture to the creation of a European cit-izen, stressing that the citizens of the Communitys member states had not

significantly developed an emotional attachment to the Communitys bureau-cracy and, therefore, although they were Europeans, these citizens did notfeel European.19 Subsequently, Adonnino was appointed the chair of thepublic-relations campaign, called a Peoples Europe, which aggressivelypromoted many of the suggestions made by the report.

The Commissions representative advisor to the ad hoc committee fora Peoples Europe was Carlo Ripa di Meana, who had been appointed tothe Commission in 1985 and who became the first commissioner to workdirectly with the newly formed DG X. In this capacity, notwithstanding thecommissions legal limitations in cultural affairs, Ripa di Meana repeatedly

asserted that he was the commissioner responsible for European Cultural


9/24


Affairs.20 Ripa di Meana, before being appointed to the Commission, hadbeen an Italian Socialist MEP of some stature. Elected in the first directelections of the European Parliament in 1979, he became a major figure inthe Socialist Party (later he was a leading member of the Green Party) and

was a founding member of the Crocodile Club (a very influential informalgroup of MEPs founded in 1980 that advocated more federalised Europeanintegration and strengthening the powers of the European Parliament).21

Public statements by Ripa di Meana show strong commitment to the idea ofusing cultural policy to cultivate allegiance to the EC. In 1985, for instance,

Europe reported, According to Mr. Ripa di Meana, what was really at stakefor European culture and for Europe as a whole is the Communityscapacity to mobilise modern methods of communication to widely circu-late European cultural products, in order to bring forth the emergence of aEuropean cultural identity (underline in original).22

The Adonnino report and the comments by Ripa di Meana have beenused by scholars to argue that European cultural policy developed in the1980s as an attempt to create a common set of European symbols in order toengineer a European identity and facilitate a European-state building effort. 23

Although the Community offered economic justifications for its involvementin cultural affairs, according to this argument, the Delors Commission wasreally supplementing di Meanas efforts to revive interest in the institutionsof the Community and the motor potential of the commission to promoteEuropean integration. However, this characterisation is deficient because(as I will show in the following sections) the development of a European-

wide cultural policy was more than a means of engineering a pan-Europeanidentity; it was also related to economic considerations and how these con-siderations were related to real or perceived economic returns that wereat stake for the competitiveness of the Communitys member states thenstruggling to define what constituted an appropriate European-wide culturalpolicy.

THE CULTURAL SECTOR IS NOT CULTURE: THE EUROPEAN

FOUNDATION AND COMMUNITYS ACTIONIN THE CULTURAL SECTOR

European cultural policy can be traced back approximately twenty-five yearsbefore the first Delors Commission, as early as 1961, when the EuropeanParliament (formerly the Assembly) was given the opportunity to extend itscourse of action towards new domains, with the focus on reinforcing theEuropean Union.24 About a decade later, in 1973, after the Communitysmember states signed the Declaration of Copenhagen, pronouncing a com-mon European identity, the Parliament passed a resolution concerning the

safeguard of European cultural heritage, which had been conceived by


10/24

934 Eliot Tretter

British Conservative and Unionist Party MEP Diana Elles.25 With this resolu-tion, at least one commentator suggested, Cultural questions began to trulybecome an integral part of parliamentary concerns as both economic andsocial questions.26

The push to expand the Communitys involvement into cultural pol-icy began to advance significantly in 1977, when, due to pressure from theParliament, the Commission published two reports.27 The first concerned theprospects of creating a foundation called The European Foundation. Theidea had first been advanced in 1976, in the Tindemans Report, which hadoutlined the legal, technical, and administrative criteria for creating a foun-dation to promote a common European cultural awareness.28 All rhetoricaside, the report noted, the Community is more than a geo-political entity,neither is it for mere geo-political reasons that we are attempting to make thecitizens of our countries responsible Europeans with a sense of their common

destiny (italics in the original).29 The proposal to establish the founda-tion was strongly backed by parliamentarians, particularly from Italy andFrance.30 However, it was never created because the resolution that wouldhave allowed for its establishment failed to pass in the Dutch Parliamentin 1987, despite having been ratified by nearly all the governments of theECs member states; according to Europe, this failure was in part the resultof objections that the foundation would have unnecessarily duplicated exist-ing EC activities.31 Over the previous ten years, many of the goals of theEuropean Foundation outlined in the Tindemans report had found their wayinto other Community initiatives, such as the inclusion of tax concessionsfor private contributions to cultural programmes and numerous programmesto support tourism.

Although many passages from the European Foundation report sup-port the contention that the basis of European cultural policy was primarilysymbolic and about engineering a sense of European identity, another doc-ument published in 1977, titled Community Action in the Cultural Sector,does not. Concerning itself with the growing economic importance of thecultural sector and the securing of better economic conditions for cul-tural producers and distributors, the report focused primarily on the free

movement of goods, theft, copyrights, freedom of movement for workers,training, taxation, and social security as well as some other minor issuessuch as architectural restoration, cultural exchanges, and the promotionof socio-cultural activities at a European level.32 The report was significantbecause it offered a legal justification for Community interventions in culturalaffairs by suggesting that just as the cultural sector is not in itself culture,European Community action in the cultural sector does not constitute a cul-tural policy.33 While the Communitys potential actions were presented as aEuropean-wide concern, it was nevertheless clear that some member statesmight gain more than others. The report, for instance, cited the number of

private cultural goods stolen between the years 1970 and 1974. Italy ranked


11/24


number one with just under 11,000 thefts, while Luxemburg, over an evenlonger period, had only 140. In the theft of archaeological artifacts, the statis-tics were even more striking. Italy, which the report noted was particularlyrich in archeological heritage, lacked the means to preserve it, and between

1970 and 1974, the country had over 40,000 stolen objects recovered.34

TheEuropeanisation of rules, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms and/ormoney spent for handling the theft of art, therefore, would benefit Italymuch more than other member states such as Luxemburg.35

ITALIAN MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THECREATION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR CULTURAL

HERITAGE, TOURISM, AND WORKERS

European parliamentarians have been the most vocal supporters for expand-ing the powers of the EC, a dynamic that grew stronger after parliament wasdirectly elected in 1979. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, MEPs also stronglypushed for the development of a European-wide cultural policy, and onemight suppose that there was a tendency by MEPs to endorse these policiesbecause they were a tool for engineering a sense of European identity and

would increase the authority of the EC.36

However, this explanation cannot account for why, in the late 1970s andearly 1980s, the European Parliaments attempts to advance the Communitysrole in cultural affairs were spearheaded disproportionately by Italian MEPs,most of whom were members of the Socialist Party or Communist Party.Party affiliation seems to be important for at least two reasons. On the onehand, as other authors have noted, Communists and Socialist MEPs from allcountries, but particularly Italy, were at the forefront of campaigns in the late1970s and early 1980s to expand the powers of the Community.37 On theother hand, the justifications offered for Community interventions, primarilyfrom these MEPs, were primarily economic and Sandell went so far as tocharacterise them as quasi-Marxist.38

National origin was also important, as it was Italian MEPs across thepolitical spectrum who were often the most outspoken and proactive inpushing for the development of an EC cultural policy. For instance, in1979 Socialist MEP Giuseppe Amadei sponsored a report in the Parliamentthat called for Community action in the cultural sphere as a whole andasked that funds be provided to enable this action to be continued.39

Following the Amadei report, in 1981, other Italian MEPs, such as SocialistGaetano Arf, Christian Democrat Mario Pedini, and Communist GiovanniPapapietro, played an important role in having French UDF ParliamentarianMarie-Jane Pruvot prepare a report on the necessity of having the com-

missions Office of Statistics compile information about the social situation


12/24

936 Eliot Tretter

of workers in the cultural sector in order to demonstrate that more focuswas needed for the cultural sector at a Community level to protect culturalworkers.40 Statistical evidence in the report showed that the cultural sec-tor was a large and growing portion of the economy, and parliamentarians

began to more vocally support increasing the ECs role in cultural affairs,passing a resolution in 1983, sponsored by Communist MEP Guido Fanti(once vice president of the European Parliament), stipulating that 1 percentof the Community budget be dedicated to cultural affairs.41 Significantly,although the so-called Fanti Report focused on ensuring that proper socialstandards were being adhered to in the cultural sector, the parliamentary res-olution placed no limits on how the money appropriated for cultural policycould be spent.42

The Italian government had been an active supporter of plans to codifythe Communitys role in the preservation of European cultural heritage.43 If

a Community cultural policy were developed, there would surely be tan-gible material benefits for Italy. According to UNESCO, Italy was estimatedto have nearly 60 percent of the most important works of art and culturalheritage and 50 percent of the archaeological sites in the world, and in1975 Italy had established a Ministry for Cultural Property (with more than20,000 employees) to manage much of this large cultural infrastructure.44

Problems with maintenance of this infrastructure were routine, particularlybecause of a lack of funds, and the large bureaucracy was often unwieldy. 45

Complementing this national effort, I would suggest, Italian MEPs supportedthe establishment of a European cultural policy because it helped to develop

new sources of finance and support, particularly for architectural and archeo-logical heritage.46 Such a conclusion about the role of Italian MEPs in relationto the development of European cultural policy is consistent with Schollsfindings in his study of the European Parliament and European RegionalDevelopments Funds (ERDF), undertaken in the early 1980s. He showedthat MEPs did try to influence the selection and allocation of ERDF fundsand also reform present regulations and seek new proposals.47 In 1983 Italy

was the largest single recipient of Community investment in historic preser-vation; of the approximately 2.5 million ECUs earmarked by the Commission

or the ERDF for historic and architectural preservation, Italy received justabout half.48

Cultural tourism was also increasingly considered an essen-tial part of European economic competitiveness, especially for Italy.

A 1986 Commission report on the economic and social impact of tourismhighlighted its growing importance. It would be wrong, the report noted,to take Community tourism for granted . . . without fearing competitionfrom other continents or other countries.49 The report went on:

Culture represents a fundamental element of tourism. In the modern

economic context it is important that the cultural resource is inserted


13/24


in a complete cycle of exploiting its potential to the full. This wouldinclude not only the discovery, preservation, restoration, maintenanceand organised use of cultural resources but also the application of newtechnologies specifically adapted for the purpose and appropriate mod-ern training for those employed in these sectors. In the frameworkof Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMP), the Community mayfinance not only the building and moderisation of hotels, rural accom-modation and other installations and infrastructure related to tourismdevelopment, but also promotional, publicity, and touristic animationactivities.50

The same study estimated that Italy had the largest revenue from interna-tional tourism, with nearly a tenfold increase between 1970 and 1984.51

Moreover, with nearly 9 percent of its foreign-exchange revenues derived

from tourism over the same period, Italy had a larger percentage of itsforeign exchange coming from tourism than any of the other six originalmembers of the Community.52 In terms of international tourism as a per-centage of GDP, in 1981 Italy had the highest receipts (2.1 percent) and thehighest receipt as a percentage of exports (8.6 percent) of all the Communitymember states.53 While this revenue was not limited to cultural tourism,the commercialisation of Italys large Renaissance and Roman cultural infras-tructure, whether in the form of works of art or architecture, was understoodmore and more to be of growing economic significance.54

A study done by Pearce on ERDF grants or assistance for tourism-related projects for the period 19751985 showed Italy and Greece werethe main beneficiaries of newly formed European intergovernmental trans-fers for tourism. During that time, Italy received the second largest amountof grant money, about 48 million ECUs. Britain received the lions shareof the funds, about 61 percent (153 million ECUs) of all the ERDF fundingfor tourism, which mainly went to urban areas and was largely a reflectionof preexisting payments to the UK as a part of the rebate that MargaretThatcher had won as a concession in 1984 from the Community. More tellingthan Italy was Greece, which came in a distant third, receiving about 14 mil-

lion, but which had only been eligible for these funds since 1981, whenit joined the Community. Each remaining member state received less than14 million ECUs; both Ireland and Denmark got less than a million. It isimportant to note that these patterns may not represent new sources ofintergovernmental transfers because these grants were largely grafted on tothe existing geographical distribution of ERDF funds; Italy and Britain werealready the primary beneficiaries of ERDF support, and in Italy the major-ity of the money received paid for a marina project in Sicily in conjunction

with another ERDF project, while in Britain the funds were invested in con-ference and exhibition facilities to convert industrial areas, which were

already receiving ERDF funds.55 Nevertheless, Greece benefited from the


14/24

938 Eliot Tretter

Communitys new economic commitment to tourism. Like Italy, that coun-trys economic prosperity was greatly tied to the commercialisation of itscultural infrastructure.56

Cultural workers were defined very broadly in 1982 by the parliamen-

tary resolution as creative artists (writers, composers, painters, sculptors,craftsmen. . . .), and the performing artists: actors, singers, dancers, andmusicians, a definition that included many people employed, directly orindirectly, in cultural tourism.57 In 1985 Italy was estimated to have the sec-ond largest number of full-time tourism employees (about 140,000) in theCommunity, surpassed only by Frances approximately 150,000.58 Moreover,it was estimated that tourism-related jobs made up about 7 percent of Italysnational employment about the same as France and Greece but markedlyhigher than Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands, which were all below4.5 percent.59 Despite the fact that not all people employed in the tourist

trade were cultural workers, the parliamentary measures that sought tocodify stronger standards and protections for people employed in the cul-tural sector would have had direct impacts on poor living conditions andthe lax enforcement of labour laws for a great number of Italians workingin the tourist sector, now classified as cultural workers.

Additionally, expanding the Communitys involvement in the cul-tural sector by harmonising working standards, creating mechanisms forenforcement, and developing new regulations would have benefited Italiancraftsmen, who had also been reclassified as cultural workers by Parliamentsexpansive definition. Italys economic growth during the 1980s was strongly

connected to its unique cultural infrastructure, or at least its particularcultural traditions, which helped maintain a system of industrial districtsfuelled by small artisanal networks.60 Reclassifying craftsmen (artisans) ascultural producers made them eligible for protection and support thatmight have been forbidden under EC internal market regulations concerningnational government support of industrial activities. In 1985, for instance, theEuropean Social Fund was permitted to extend financial support to cultural

workers.61

THE CULTURAL BLOC: THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, THEMEETINGS OF MINISTERS OF CULTURE

In the previous section, I showed how cultural policy developed in a numberof separate but conjoining areas, from cultural tourism to cultural work-ers, and suggested that perceived economic returns were also a significantfactor though not the only one in why many Italian MEPs were key sup-porters of the development of a Community cultural policy. In the remainingpart of this paper, I will discuss the development of cultural policy within

the Council of Ministers and among the Ministers of Culture. I will focus on


15/24


how the main areas of disagreement among the leaders of the member statesin the development of a European cultural policy concerned the impacts ofnew forms of regulations and subsidies on national competitiveness.

The Communitys executive functions were divided between the

Commission and the Council. The Commission was run by staff in thedepartments known as the Directorate-Generals (DGs) and Commissioners.The DGs civil servants were independent and not accountable to nationalelectors or parties, and commissioners, while their past and potentially futurecareers were influenced by these groups, were appointed to the Commissionto serve the Communitys interests. In contrast, the Council of Ministers,consisting of representatives from each member states national govern-ment who were accountable (in some fashion) to national electors andparties, was guided explicitly by the principle of national interest, i.e.,making the Community better serve individual member states interests.62

To better understand the workings of the Council during this period, it isimportant to know that between 1973 and 1986 the Communitys member-ship grew beyond the six original member states of France, West German,Italy, Luxemburg, Belgium, and the Netherlands. In 1973 Ireland, the UnitedKingdom, and Denmark joined, followed by Greece in 1981 and Spain andPortugal in 1986. These enlargements meant not only that the Council had toadjust to more members, and potential sources of conflict, but also that thedecision-making powers of each individual member state were diminished.

In the early 1980s, national governments disagreed over whetherEuropean cultural ministers should even meet within the Council. In 1981,

Frances Mitterrand government announced that it was supporting ItalianRepublican Party Prime Minister Giovanni Spadolinis suggestion to holdan informal meeting of the ministers of culture from the governments ofthe Communitys member states.63 However, it was not until 1982 that theEuropean Council held an informal meeting among the cultural ministersin Naples at the invitation of Italys minister of culture, Vincenzo Scotti, aChristian Democrat, who was supported by Socialist Jack Lang of Franceand Melina Mercouri, the Greek minister of culture.64 The Commission wasrepresented by Irelands Richard Burke, who, before the meeting, made

a public statement stressing several areas of possible Community action such as regulations for writers and interpreters, the harmonisation of taxa-tion for cultural goods and services, the free exchange of cultural assets, theimprovement of the standard of living and working conditions for cultural

workers, and the conservation of architectural heritage.65 The ministers whosupported the meeting encountered strong opposition from Denmark, theUK, and Germany because representatives from those countries did not seethe need for State or Community inventions in cultural policy.66

Undeterred, France, Italy, and Greece continued to push for the Councilto hold official meetings among cultural ministers. In 1983 these countries

received a boost from the signing of the Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart (the


16/24

940 Eliot Tretter

Genscher-Colombo Plan), which, in addition to calling for cooperation in thecreation of a common European foreign policy, contained a small sectionon cultural cooperation (calls for a common foreign policy had increased, inpart, because a second Cold War between the United States and the Soviet

Union had been escalating since the late 1970s).67

With the momentum ofthe signing of the Genscher-Colombo Plan and the backing of importantMEPs, such as Guido Fanti, conspiring against them, the opposition cededone year later, and the Council held its first formal meeting among theEuropean Ministers of Culture in Luxembourg, chaired by Lang. The mainissues discussed at the meeting were the fight against audio-visual piracy,private copyrights on works of art, the possibility of Community subsidiesfor cultural industries in the form of grants and loans, economic preferencesgiven to Community cultural productions, common standards concerning thebroadcasting and distribution of films, and cultural cooperation.68 The fight

against audio-visual piracy was the only area where there was consensus forCommunity action.69

Within the Council, support for developing a Community cultural pol-icy came mainly from a distinct cultural bloc consisting of France, Italy,and Greece, while the UK and Denmark were its principle opponents.Belgium and Germany, both lacking a national minister of culture, wereoften reluctant to weigh in on the development of a European-wide cul-tural policy and at times supported and other times opposed the so-calledcultural bloc. Significantly, the oppositions concerns were not about thegrowing power of the Community, the erosion of national difference, or the

dangers of creating a European identity, although these might have beenconsiderations. Instead, the evidence shows that many of the disagreements

were much more about the particular impacts such a policy might have onmember states in the redistribution of resources, new forms of economicprotectionism, and the gradual enlargement of Community regulations.

Take architectural and archeological policy. By 1986, Greece and Italywere the largest recipients of grants and loans from the ERDF and the EIB forthe financing of architectural heritage projects throughout the Community.70

Surely, these projects had symbolic value, helping to promote the idea of

a common European identity and cultural space because Greece and Italywere often presented as the birthplaces of the so-called three grand unifyingtraditions of Europe Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christendom.By restoring and preserving their architectural and archaeological ruins, theCommunity was symbolically attempting to construct the idea of a unifiedEuropean culture on a supposed common historical ground.71 However,Greek and Italian politicians also had a strong national incentive to pushthe development of cultural policies and programmes: doing so would helptheir citizens garner more Community funds. Money meant employment,and the restoration of these cultural infrastructures was related to long-

term economic fortunes in tourism: although Greece and Italy were not the


17/24


only beneficiaries, those countries national competitiveness, in this respect,was served by the Europeanisation of their cultural assets.

DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF EUROPEANCULTURAL POLICY: THE FRENCH SUPPORT FOR A

EUROPEAN-WIDE CULTURAL POLICY, JACK LANG, PROTECTINGBOOKS AS CULTURAL ARTIFACTS, AND THE BRITISH SUPPORT

FOR A EUROPEAN AUDIO-VISUAL POLICY

The French government was, perhaps, the staunchest supporter of aEuropean cultural policy within the Council. Over the course of the twen-tieth century, France developed a strong nationally centralised system for

promoting its national culture, which became the model for many otherEuropean states.72 Its modern system of state intervention began in earnest inthe early 1960s, when French President Charles De Gaulle created a depart-ment of culture affairs and appointed Andre Malraux, the famed author andstatesman, its head.73 After a decline in state financing and support for cul-tural programmes under the UDF presidency of Valery Giscard DEstaingin the 1970s, the government of Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, ledby his minister of culture, Jack Lang, pursued what Lang called a culturalrenaissance.74 In his comprehensive study, David Looseley documents theremarkable transformations that took place in the Ministry of Culture underLangs leadership during the 1980s, particularly how Lang reformulated theimportance of cultural policy in France.75 Most visibly, Lang saw a strength-ened cultural policy as a bulwark against American dominance, and he wasan ardent supporter of the cultural exception (which would have allowedcountries to use tariffs, quotas, and subsidies to protect their audio-visualsectors) in the so-called Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade (GATT) in the late 1980s.76 However, Lang, unlike his predeces-sors in the Ministry of Culture, did not rely on an exclusively high-culturedefinition of culture but instead vigorously deflated the meaning of culture

(one critic accused him of making everything cultural). Moreover, and per-haps most importantly, he showed an unwavering commitment to usingstate institutions (a dirigiste system) to support, protect, and develop theeconomic potential of the arts and cultural industries in France.77

However, even with these notable changes, the continuity of the Frenchgovernments commitment to developing a Community-wide framework forcultural policy was remarkable. In both 1977 and 1982, under differentnational political leadership, the French Government urged the commis-sion to pursue Community action in cultural affairs. Both attempts wereblocked.78 In 1981, then President Giscard proclaimed in an interview in

Le Figaro, The European identity will be born thanks to culture, and not


18/24

942 Eliot Tretter

by vague combinations of electoral laws or discussions on Communitybudgets.79 That same year, newly elected President Mitterrands govern-ment released a report titled French Government Memorandum on the

Revitalization of the Community, which noted, The French Government

considers that European integration will only progress if culture, whichis one of the basic components of the identity of the European peoples,becomes a factor in the Member-states endeavor . . .80 Such sentiments

were amplified by Jack Lang, who in 1984 went so far as to allegedly,and falsely, claim that Jean Monnet, architect of the Community, had said,If Europe [i.e., the European Community] is to be re-formed, one shouldperhaps begin with culture.81

Lang often presented the preference for a strong governmental culturalpolicy as a means of protection from the United States cultural imperi-alism, most famously at the 1982 UNESCO meeting in Mexico City. But

contrary to most commentators, Littoz-Monnet has convincingly argued thatLang (and Mitterrand) was motivated not only by a desire to protect Frenchindustries from the external influences of the USA but also from the free-market orientation of the EC.82 The Communitys commitment to extendingthe principles of a common market had begun to encroach upon the Frenchprotection of their cultural industries, particularly subsidies and quotas forthe audio-visual and book industries. Largely in response to the Community,Lang, according to Littoz-Monnet, proactively attempted to make the Frenchdirigiste model of cultural policy into the European one in order to ensurethe continued existence of the framework in France. For instance, at one of

the first meetings of the ministers of culture in the Council, Lang unsuccess-fully proposed recognising cultural industries as real industries so grants

would be available from the EIB.83

Among other examples, Littoz-Monnet focuses on European book-pricing policies. One of Langs signature achievements was a law adoptedin 1981 that required the fixing of book prices in France. The so-calledLang Law was subsequently challenged for infringing on competition inthe European Court of Justice by the Association des Centres DistributeursEdouard Leclerc, the owner of several retail outlets in France that sold books

for a lower price than was specified by the government.

84

The French gov-ernment contended that, consistent with Community treaties, these restrictivepractices were legal and, in fact, necessary to protect books as culturalmedia from the adverse impact that untrammelled competition in retail prices

would have on the diversity and cultural level of publishing.85 While theEuropean Court of Justice disagreed with this interpretation of Article 36,because cultural products were not specifically enumerated in that article, itnevertheless sustained Frances right to stabilise the price of books becausethe court interpreted the competition sections of the European CommunityTreaty just as narrowly and ruled that they did not prohibit the fixing of the

price of books by national governments.86

Following the Courts ruling, Lang


19/24


pushed for a European book-pricing system within the Council.87 150 pro-fessionals met in Aries at the invitation of the French Ministry of culture,Littoz-Monnet noted, and a text was adopted laying the foundations for aEuropean directive on fixed book prices.88 The Commission even drafted

a report about the possibility of a common-market fixed-priced system forbooks, although it tended to downplay the effectiveness of price fixing.89

While Langs predilection toward regulating book pricing was supported bya 1981 resolution in the Parliament stating that the book sector should not begoverned only by economic imperatives, his attempt was blocked by othermember states.90

Moreover, Lang attempted to develop a Community-wide cultural policythat would have followed France in subsidising European film and television,in part to limit the encroachment of American (English-language) cinema andtelevision shows.91 In 1983, French companies produced around 131 films,

a greater number than Italy, Germany, or the UK, but overall, French filmproduction had declined substantially since 1973, when French companieshad produced 180 films.92 The lackluster performance of French cinemaoutside of the French-speaking world was attributed to the growing num-ber of films produced in the USA that were being consumed in Europe andabroad. In 1984, France and Germany reached a film co-production agree-ment, and in 1984 Lang proposed that in this sector [film], rather like in theCAP [Common Agricultural Policy], a levy be established on audiovisual filmsbought abroad; the example set by the Franco-German film co-productionfund should be extended at the Community level. Again, the Council didnot reach an agreement on film production, but Lang played a crucial rolein developing an institutional framework for later EC interventions into theaudio-visual sector.93

Lang was attempting to develop a Community cultural policy in orderto foreclose other alternative models, in part because of pressure from theCommission, especially in the audio-visual sector. In 1984, the Commissionreleased a Green Paper called Television Without Frontiers (TWF), whichcalled for the elimination of national barriers for broadcasting and otherimpediments to the free movement of television programmes in the inter-

nal market.94

The report later became a cornerstone for future discussions.It outlined a free-market approach to audio-visual policy and was one of theCommunitys most ambitious cultural policy initiatives. The French staunchlyopposed TWF, in part because of its potential impact on the French culturalsector. Frances strong support for the development of Community inter-

ventions into cultural affairs, therefore, should not be understood as merelya preference for a strong dirigiste system of intervention into cultural pol-icy or even just a penchant among the French for culture; instead, it waslargely related to a strong national interest in developing new forms of sup-port for its cultural sector. In contrast, while the British had repeatedly

objected to the cultural blocs proposed interventions into cultural matters,


20/24

944 Eliot Tretter

they strongly backed the TWF initiative, in part because of its perceivedpotential economic returns for Britain. Richard Collins noted that [a] liberal,free market, audiovisual policy [was] likely to serve the UK well. The UK[had] a stronger audiovisual sector with a healthier international balance of

trade than have those other Community Countries.95

A year after the releaseof the TWF report, in 1985, Britain accounted for an estimated 70 percent oftotal Community audio-visual exports.96

CONCLUSION

I have been arguing that the development of the Communitys cultural pol-icy was like any other industrial policy designed to ensure the Communityseconomic competitiveness and place at the top of the global economic hier-

archy for investment and production. In the geopolitical struggle with theUnited States and Japan, the development of a cultural policy was imper-ative because knowledge and services were becoming the centrepiecesof what would later be called the new economy. While new Europeanmechanisms for the intergovernmental transfers of wealth, subsidies, andforms of protectionism were crucial to developing unified transnationalsolutions, perceptions of the impact of the EC policies on national competi-tiveness remain important to understanding how and why EC cultural policydeveloped. Italian members of parliament played a crucial role in supportingthe development of the ECs cultural policy, were able to develop new mech-anisms for intergovernmental transfers of revenue, and also tried to raisethe living standard for workers in the cultural sector. The national politi-cians of Italy and Greece strongly backed these parliamentarians, as theircountries became the main recipients of money dedicated to the restora-tion and maintenance of European patrimony. While perhaps benefitingfrom these new cultural policies, the French went further and attemptedto make the architecture of the Communitys cultural policy resemble theirdirigiste system. Their aim was to exclude alternatives and lock in a systemthey believed would benefit their cultural industries by undermining the

EJC and the ECs internal market regulations. The French also attempted toclaim sole ownership over the content and form of a European culturalpolicy, which meant they tried to equate not supporting their policy pref-erences with not supporting a European cultural policy in general. Britainand Denmark opposed many of Frances initiatives to create a Europeancultural policy and were branded anti-European and anti-cultural as aconsequence. But I have shown that the British did, in fact, favour the cre-ation of a European cultural policy but only when that policy stood to helpBritish national competitiveness.

Furthermore, while this paper has outlined the economic stakes in

the development of EC cultural policy, it suggests how new forms of


21/24


transnational governance may have influenced the remaking of national eco-nomics. European economies are ever more invested in the development ofthe cultural industries, whether these are the audio-visual sector or culturaltourism.97 European economic integration appears to have been a significant

condition for cultural practices in the ECs member states if they wanted tobecome enveloped in the economic logic of interstate competition. Whilethe Community offered a new, internally homogenous market and mecha-nisms of economic liberalisation, it also offered a new spatial category thattranscended national boundaries and national monopolies on heritage orcultural forms. While national economies continued to maintain their domi-nance over cultural practices, the ECs policy was essential in inventing theEuropean cultural sector by reclassifying as cultural a range of differenttypes of productive, distributive, and reproductive activities and services.In this respect, Europes cultural infrastructure was Europeanised by the

institutions of the EC, and national elements were reconfigured in mar-ketable European products. Nevertheless, national differences from lan-guage to monuments to art became more salient attributes for the compet-itiveness of member-states as they increasingly became exportable products.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Josh Rosenblatt for his excellent copyediting abilitiesas well as Frank Cody, Arvind Susarla, Robert Paul Resch, David Harvey,Marokot Jewachinda, and two anonymous reviewers for providing usefulcomments. Also, I would like to extend a special thanks to Emir Lawless,the European University Institute librarian whose help was invaluable infinding relevant materials.

NOTES

1. S. Veil, Preface, in J. Delcourt and R. Papini (eds.), Pour une Politique Europene de la Culture

(Paris: Economica 1987) p. II.2. R. Marjolin, What Type of Europe?, in C. Brinkley and D. Hackett (eds.), Jean Monnet(New York: St. Martins 1991) pp. 174175.

3. C. Barnett, Culture, Policy and Subsidiarity in the European Union, Political Geography 20/4(2001); A. Biscoe, European Integration and the Maintenance of Regional Cultural Diversity, RegionalStudies 35/1 (2001); A. Donaldson, Performing Regions, Environment and Planning A 38 (2006);M. McDonald, Unity in Diversity, Social Anthropology 4/1 (1996); J. Delgado Moriera, Cohesionand Citizenship in EU Cultural Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies 38/3 (2000); T. Risse andD. Englemann-Martin, Identity Politics and European Integration, in A. Pagden (ed.), The Idea of Europe(Cambridge: Cambridge 2002); C. Shore, Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration(London: Routledge 2000); K. Simonsen, Europe. National Identities and Multiple Others, EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies 11/4 (2004); E. Tretter, Scales, Regimes, and the Urban Governance ofGlasgow, Journal of Urban Affairs 30/1 (2008); M. Sassatelli, European Cultural Space in the European

Cities of Culture, European Societies 10/2 (2008).


22/24

946 Eliot Tretter

4. J. McMahon, Education and culture in European Community Law (London: Athlone 1995).

5. G. Carchedi, For another Europe (London: Verso 2001) p. 128; S. Heeg and J. Onbrgge, StateFormation and Territoriality in the European Union, Geopolitics 7/3 (2002) p. 78.

6. D. Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change(Oxford: Blackwell 1989); J. Lash and S. Urry, Economies of Signs and Space (London: Sage 1994);D. Power and A. Scott, A Prelude to Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture, in D. Power andA. Scott (eds.), Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture(London: Routledge 2004); A. Scott, TheCultural Economy of Cities (London: Sage 2000).

7. P. Le Gals European Cities (New York: OUP 2002).8. G. Evans, Cultural Planning, an Urban Renaissance? (London: Routledge 2001).9. A. Littoz-Monnet, European Cultural Policy, French Politics 1 (2003); A. Littoz-Monnet, The

European Politics of Book Pricing, West European Politics 28/1 (2005); A. Littoz-Monnet, The EuropeanUnion and Culture (Manchester: Manchester 2007).

10. T. Oakes, The Cultural Space of Modernity, Environment and Planning D 11/1 (1993);E. Tretter, The Cultures of Capitalism, Antipode 41/1 (2009).

11. A. Bagnasco and C. Sabel, Small- and Medium-Size Enterprises (London: Pinter 1995);H. Molotch, Place in Product, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26/4 (2002).

12. Council of Europe, Official Record of the Second Conference of European Ministers Responsible

for Cultural Affairs, Athens, 2426 October 1978 (Strasbourg: Council of Europe 1980) pp. 146148.13. McDonald (note 3).14. T. Sandell, Cultural Issues, Debate, and Programmes, in P. Barbour (ed.), The European Union

Handbook (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn 1996).

15. M. De Certeau and L. Giard, Culture in the Plural (Minneapolis: Minnesota 1997); R. Burnsand W. van der Will, German Cultural Policy an Overview, International Journal of Cultural Policy 9/2(2003) pp. 141144; D. Looseley, The Politics of Fun (Oxford: Berg 1995); T. Eagleton, The Idea of Culture(Malden: Blackwell 2000); R. Hewison, Culture and Consensus (London: Methuen 1995) pp. 123158.

16. European Commission, Community Action in the Cultural Sector, Bulletin of the European

CommunitiesSupplement 6/77 (1977) p. 24.

17. R. Collins, Unity in Diversity?, Journal of Common Market Studies 32/1 (1994) p. 90.18. European Commission, Peoples Europe: Reports from the Ad Hoc Committee, Bulletin of the

European CommunitiesSupplement 7/85 (1986).

19. Ibid., pp. 1821.20. J. Buxton, Italy Chooses Journalist as Commissioner, Financial Times, 1984; The Green Man

in Brussels, The Economist, 1992.21. G. Ross, Jacques Delors and European Integration (Cambridge: Polity 1995) p. 160.

22. The E.E.C. Ought to Widely Circulate European Cultural Products, Agence Europe, 6 Feb. 1986.23. Shore (note 3).24. V. Pacco, Laction du Parlement Europeen Dans Le Secteur Culturel, Brussels 1983, p 1.25. Council of Ministers of the European Community, Political Cooperation, Bulletin European

Communities 12/6 (1973); L. Passerini, From the Ironies of Identity to Identities of Irony, in A. Pagden(ed.), The Idea of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge 2002) pp. 194195; Pacco (note 24) p. 11; EuropeanParliament, Parliamentary Resolution for Community Action in the Cultural Sector, Official Journal ofthe European Community 79/5-4 (1976) p. 5.

26. Pacco (note 24) p. 11; European Parliament, Parliamentary Resolution (note 25) p. 5.27. European Parliament, Parliamentary Resolution (note 25).28. L. Tindemans, Bulletin of the European Communities Supplement 1/76 (1976) p. 28.29. European Commission, Commission Report on the Establishment of the European Foundation,

Bulletin of the European CommunitiesSupplement 6/77 (1977) p. 15.

30. European Parliament, European Foundation, Debates of the European Parliament 1-305/27-10(1983) pp. 193199.

31. The Creation of the European Foundation, Agence Europe, 20 May 1987.32. European Commission, Community Action in the Cultural Sector (note 16).33. Ibid., p. 5.34. Ibid., p. 8.35. J. Grego, Renewed Interest in Hidden Heritage, Financial Times, 6 June 1991; P. Privat,

C. Dickey, K. Shulman, J. Morrison, and D. Mehnert, Can Europe Keep its Treasures at Home After

1992?, Newsweek, 1990.


23/24


36. McDonald (note 3) p. 50; S. Scarrow, Political Career and the European Parliament, LegislativeStudies Quarterly 22/2 (1997).

37. A. Daltrop, Politics and the European Community (Harlow: Longman 1986) p. 86.38. Sandell (note 14) p. 269.39. Amadei , Agence Europe, 11 Jan. 1979; Pacco (note 24) pp. 78.40. European Parliament, Cultural Sector, Debates of the European Parliament 1-306/1711

(1983) p. 240; Pacco (note 24) p. 14.41. Fanti Report, Agence Europe, 21/22 Nov. 1983.

42. European Parliament, Fanti Report, in Parliament (ed.), European Parliament WorkingDocument (Brussels: European Community 1983).

43. Move for EEC Directive, Agence Europe, 20 May 1981.44. P. Wright, Inside Italy, Museums Journal (June 1991) p. 51; L. Zan, S. Baraldi, and C. Gordon,

Cultural Heritage Between Centralisation and Decentralisation, International Journal of Cultural Policy13/1 (2007) pp. 5152; A. Girard, For A Cultural Revival in Italy, Cultural Policy 3/1 (1996) p. 62.

45. F. Bianchini, M. Torrigiani, and R. Cere, Cultural Policy, in D. Forgacs and R. Lumley (eds.),

Italian Cultural Studies(Oxford: Oxford 1996) p. 302.46. European Commission, Stronger Community Action in the Cultural Sector, COM (82) 590,

Brussels, 1982, pp. 1822.

47. E. Scholl, Pork Barrel Politics in the European Parliament, Political Science (Atlanta, GA:Emory University 1985) p. 157.

48. The Commission Informs the Parliament, Agence Europe, 5 Oct. 1983.49. European Commission, Community Action in the Field of Tourism, Bulletin of the European

CommunitiesSupplement 4/86 (1986) p. 5.50. Ibid., p. 14.51. Ibid., p. 18.52. Ibid., p. 19.53. D. Airey, European Government Approaches to Tourism, Tourism Management (Dec. 1983)

p. 236.

54. S. Formica and M. Uysal, The Revitalization of Italy as a tourist Destination, TouristManagement 17/5 (1996); Bianchini, Torrigiani, and Cere (note 45) p. 299.

55. D. Pearce, Tourism and Regional Development in the European Community, Tourism

Management (March 1988) p. 17.56. A. Loukaki, Whose Genius Loci?, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87/2

(1997).57. European Parliament, Interim Report on the Social Situation of Cultural Workers, European

Parliament Working Documents 19801981, Brussels, 1980, p. 7; European Commission, Community

Action in the Field of Tourism (note 49) p. 10.58. J. OHagan and P. Walron, Estimating The Magnitude of Tourism in the European Community

Data Deficiencies and Some Results, Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry of Ireland XXV/Part IV(1987) p. 111.

59. Ibid.60. Bagnasco and Sabel (note 11).

61. Council of Ministers of the European Community, Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers

Responsible for Cultural Affairs, Meeting within the Council, of 18 December 1984 on Greater Recourseto the European Social Fund in Respect of Cultural Workers, Official Journal of European Communities4/2 (1985).

62. D. Grimm, Does Europe Need a Constitution?, in P. Gowan and P. Anderson (eds.), TheQuestion of Europe (London: Verso 1997) p. 249.

63. French Government, French Government Memorandum on Revitalization of the Community,Brussels, 1981, p. 100.

64. Reticence of E.E.C. N.O.P.D.I.C., Agence Europe, 22 Sep. 1982.65. Mr. Burkes Statement at the Ministerial meeting in Naples, Agence Europe, 20/21 Sep. 1982.66. Reticence of E.E.C. N.O.P.D.I.C. (note 64).67. Council of Ministers of the European Community, Solemn Declaration on European Union,

Bulletin of the Eur opean Communities 16/6 (1983) p. 28.

68. First Session, Agence Europe, 22 June 1984.


24/24

948 Eliot Tretter

69. Firm Commitment by the Ten to Fight against audio-Visual Piracy, Agence Europe, 27 June

1984.70. List of European Commission Interventions, Agence Europe, 7/8 April 1986.71. M. Pluciennik, Archaeology, Archaeologists and Europe, Antiquity 72 (Dec. 1998).72. J. Ahearne, Introduction, in J. Ahearne (ed.), French Cultural Policy Debates (London:

Routledge 2002) p. 1; A. CaZorzi, Administration et Financement Publics de la Culture dans laCommunaut Europenne, Commission des Communauts Europennes, 1987, p. 6.

73. Looseley (note 15) pp. 3346.

74. J. Ardagh, France in the 1980s (London: Secker & Warburg 1982) p. 615.75. Looseley (note 15).76. Littoz-Monnet, European Union and Culture (note 9) p. 64.77. Ahearne (note 72); J. Lang, Culture and the Economy, in J. Ahearne (ed.), French Cultural

Policy Debates (London: Routledge 2002 [orig. 1982]); Looseley (note 15).78. H. Chartrand, Cultural Economics (2007), available at .

79. L. Pauweis, Exclusif Avec Giscard la veille du grand choix, Le Figaro, Paris, 1981.80. French Government (note 63) p. 100.81. Firm Commitment (note 69) p. 12; Sassatelli (note 3) p. 228.

82. Littoz-Monnet, European Cultural Policy (note 9); Littoz-Monnet, European Politics of BookPricing (note 9).

83. Progress on Cultural Cooperation Projects, Agence Europe, 23 Nov. 1984.84. After the Court of Justice Decision on Book Prices, Agence Europe, 14/15 Jan. 1985.

85. European Court of Justice, Cour dappel de Poitiers - France. Fixed Prices for Books,Section 3.16, Brussels, 1985.

86. Ibid., Section 1.2; Internal Market; Books Are Different, The Economist, 1985.87. National Legislation on the Price of Books, Agence Europe, 30/31 Dec. 1985.88. Littoz-Monnet, European Politics of Book Pricing (note 9) p. 171.89. European Commission, Commission Communication to the Council on the Creation of a

Community Framework System for Book Prices, COM (85) 258 final, Brussels, 1985.90. European Parliament, Resolution on Fixed Book Prices, Official Journal of the European

Communities50/93 (1981); Littoz-Monnet, European Union and Culture (note 9) p. 112.

91. Reticence of E.E.C. N.O.P.D.I.C. (note 64).92. In Spite of Opposition from Denmark to a Formal E.E.C. Resolution, Agence Europe,

30 Nov. 1984.93. Looseley (note 15) pp. 205-206.94. European Commission, Television without Frontiers. Green Paper on the Establishment of the

Common Market for Broadcasting, Especially by Satellite and Cable, COM (84) 300 final, Brussels, 1984.95. Collins (note 17) p. 92.96. M. Maggiore, Audiovisual Production in the Single Market (Luxembourg: Commission of the

European Communities 1990) p. 45.97. European Commission, KEA European Affairs, Media Group (Turku School of Economics),

and MKW Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH, The Economy of Culture in Europe, Brussels, 2006, available at