38
9. Lessons for the making of cultural policy in Europe
The governments of Europe believe that culture cannot be left to the whims of the market. They argue
that culture is an experience good, takes time to enjoy and appreciate, and has strong social externalities.
It is therefore unpalatable if only the cultural elite enjoy culture, because culture is like language in
essence a social phenomenon. If culture is non-excludable and/or rival, it is a public good. Culture has
social value, but it also has existence value, innovation value option value and intergenerational value.
None of these factors are properly internalised by the market. Hence, governments of Europe work on a
cultural policy that stimulates cultural education for school children, develops a taste for cultural goods
that make a lasting impression, brings high culture to where ordinary people are (parks, squares, pop
temples, etc.), boosts the programming and demand for high culture, finances cultural expressions that
are non-excludable and/or rival or has social, existence, option or bequest value, and provides room for
experiment and research & development.
The challenge for most European policy makers is to boost high culture, including the synergies
with low culture, and strive for a democracy of culture by making sure that more people have the
competence to appreciate and understand cultural expressions. Democracy of culture is not concerned
with dumbing down high culture, but with making high culture available and accessible to broader, new
and more diverse audiences. This enhances the public good character of culture. Furthermore, cultural
expressions only become meaningful if they are confronted with a critical audience. Culture has to
compete with many other leisure activities, which explains that cultural participation has over the last
quarter of a century been stable while the level of education has risen substantially - see van den Broek
and de Haan (2000). Culture in Europe has become a more normal, integral part of an omnivore diet of
excursions, holidays, visits to leisure parks and even sport. Pine II and Gilmore (1999) stress that culture
increasingly has to be an experience. High culture in Europe faces the danger over the next few decades
of becoming marginalised as the leisure industry becomes even more professional, the young invest less
and less in cultural competence, the circle of genuine art lovers becomes smaller and culture is to be
found more often only in places of entertainment. Hence, many governments in Europe attempt to fight
the dumbing down of society by ensuring that culture is more than mere amusement, invest in cultural
competences and education, and give space for innovation and experiment.
Governments should avoid dead-weight losses and substitution, on the one hand, and lobbying and
rent seeking on the other hand. If subsidies to art producers are allocated by committees of experts (as on
arts councils), there is a real danger of `art for the sake of art' and an erosion of the public support for the
arts. The French model is less attractive than the Dutch or British model, because it gives to much
influence to bureaucrats and politicians and prestige objects. The Dutch model allows a greater possibility