Arm's length, 2002
Why Not, Indeed?
Are arm's length arts councils the really appropriate institutions for distributing public money to cultural operations in the new democracies in east-central Europe? Isn't there nostalgia for the old ways when sympathetic clerks could quickly help with some government money - instead of the long, bureaucratic, democratic distribution by juries?
That was the question where the first Budapest Observatory survey of granting systems arrived at in 1999, facing the wide - if not wild - array of structural setups in the 15 (or so) countries in the region. In a quest for the answer - the eternal quest for ultimate answers - friends and acquaintances of BO were asked the same in October 2002, and within a fortnight over a dozen e-mails came.
Historic legacies
The views contained in these messages exposed the deception of the concept of east-central Europe. It had been obvious before that the common historical experience of having been subject to "leftist" totalitarianism is too thin a net to herd us together, getting thinner every day. (Intentions to help these nations evolve out of communism and learn the skills of democracy are an anachronism in 2002 - democratic deficit being no more a specificity of post-communism.) What is instead specific about east-central Europe is its increasing heterogenity. The past half a century has witnessed a marked homogenisation in the western half of the continent, economically, politically and culturally (in the sense of everyday communicabilities of their citizens), a process which has been being insititutionalised within the European Union, but which seems to affect non-members of that region as well. On the other hand, east-central Europe appears like the universe after the big bang. Its more fortunate north and west rifting away from the troubled east and south, the gap increasing still, which centrifugal forces make differences between the individual countries more and more visible, once the articificial common blanket of the 'second world' has been torn and thrown off. Enclaves exist everywhere, crisis-stricken pockets in the luckier lands, and thriving downtown areas in depression countries, these, however do not deny the general pattern.
Differences, especially cultural, from one another are partly intended: once we are allowed to be our own selves again, we live with the chance. But also harsh realities are conducive in the direction of diversification. Have you compared the options and relative costs of travelling between Zagreb-Cracow, Brno-Riga or Kaunas-Skoplje on the one hand, and Edinburgh-Zaragoza, Belfast-Venice or Marseille-Helsinki on the other? Or have you tried to elicit parallel responses to a message in English from public institutions in the west and the east?
This recognition should not drive us too far. Even if we establish that the construct of east-central Europe is a weak one, sharp outside eyes will identify things in most of us which are and will for some time characteristically distinguish us from western citizens of Europe. The underlying historical substructure, dating back to the middle ages, will do for that. Related to which the bolshevik interlude is rapidly losing significance. The raison d'etre of the Budapest Observatory having thus been re-established, it is time to get back to the subject of why, or why not choose arm's length agencies for public grants for culture.
Back to arm's length agencies
In a deceptive contradiction to the relative homogenity of the west, there too, even a cursory survey of the mechanisms of granting public money to cultural operations shows marked differences. However, the basic difference is predictable. Talking to a Kulturdezernent in a German town, or a cultural administrator at any level in Italy, Spain or France, you will (almost always) find the question about an arm's length agency out of place and bizarre. And reading those intelligent and critical analyses about the functioning of arts councils in the UK, USA or Canada, you will (probably) never find a suggestion to dissolve them. (Although we received the observation that "evolution is making everyone a little more similar".)
The basic difference is explained by phasing. By the time that it became accepted, a few decades ago, that the promotion of culture, too, is a governmental obligation, the franco-germanic models of public administration could smoothly adapt to these increased duties. On the other hand, the anglo-saxon concept of public governance still found it incestuous to pass decisions on cultural (especially artistic) values and devised the quasi-public arts councils, which proved to be a hugely successful invention.
The eastern half of Europe is much less predictable. Basically, our traditions of public administration are much closer to the franco-germanic system, in fact, some of them used to be part or products of that system. On the other hand, the marketing value of anything anglo-saxon is enormous in our region. For many reasons; not the least for the power of the English language, which, up to know, has not lost its close attachment to the anglo-saxon civilisations. The first generation of top-level cultural administratons, after the fall of the Berlin wall, took it for granted that setting up arm's length agencies is the order of the day, which - besides true adaptations - led to the birth of a few Potemkin funds and councils.
The landscape in 2002
Looking around in 2002 presents a very diverse picture. In addition to the messages received by the Budapest Observatory, the continuously updated and extended collection of country profiles displayed on our web site have been our source.
Not surprisingly, the issue divides people. For some, the advantages of an arm's length agency are so obvious that they find the questions 'Why? Why not?' difficult to interpret. Their only questions are 'Why should not…' or 'Why not yet…?' In two cases, copies of proposals to respective governments were forwarded to us.
In some places arm's length agencies have become so much part of every-day realities that with all their imperfections they seem to hover over doubts. Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia seem to belong here, although reservations ("a small country where everybody is somebody's somebody"), even juicy stories could be told about them.
A bunch of judicious remarks from the thirteen messages deserve to be displayed here, some of which show resemblance to class struggles: "the independent sector is not that large and vocal yet, to counterbalance the 'pro-status quo' voices"; "'peer group assessment' is simply a form of institutionalised corruption, which works against the interests of the smaller, or new cultural NGOs and operators"; "the fact remains that the ministry decides on the dynamics of payments so in my opinion they are still 'in control' of the whole process"; "I personally find it almost impossible to fill in an application form properly because in order to fit the criteria I have to 'adjust the truth' to the square headed bureaucracy"; "some are very good at mimicking democratic procedures and turning them around for their own group benefits". Ain't they cute?
One dividing line is not geographical but generational - often in a wishful sense. "Only young associations, alternative groups, young musicians, artists rely on new ways of distribution"; "I put my faith in the young generations of civil servants and artists…"
Some Observatory friends shared our Hamletian brooding over the dilemma (I wish Delia elaborated on this further than in a semi-private e-mail). Which stance, in a way, is a sure recipe for not reaching a clear cut response; but it is conducive to a number of new and interesting questions.
Thus several correspondents observed that whether arm's length or not, matters less than certain other conditions. Accountibility and transparency are the key terms. Some remarks went quite far in relativising the initial question: "It does not matter who gives money. What matters is that people who give money know what the money is for and people who receive the money know how to spend it well." This opinion emphasises the need for a clear cultural policy, setting priorities (which, to me, seems like a vicious circle).
In a way leading far away from our subject, Dessy managed to echo a concern that I have shared for long. The greater the distress in cultural communities, the more hopes are pinned to laws, as instruments for progress and change. On the fruits of transition legislation she comments: "All these laws make the current status quo look eternal."
None of the above quotes come from Vojko. He sent a succinct message which can only be quoted in its entirety:
"Why yes: because it is more democratic - the decisions are not made by some clerks, because decisions are made by commissions of experts coming from non governmental sectors, civil society because of transparency of financing, because it provides better control on spending taxpayers money…
Why not: because it is less democratic - the decision makers are not elected by public, experts are only cover for governmental people who spread the money among their supporters, the transparency of financing is just a bluff, real money still circles behind the eyes of the public.
Maybe: quangos or hybrid organisations are still better connected to the cultural arena and they mostly feel and act more responsible to the culture and arts area than anonymous governmental officials, appointed by governmental hierarchy…"
Compiled by Péter Inkei
Naima Balić, Zagreb
Péter Deme, Budapest
Andrea Gáncs, Budapest
Dessy Gavrilova, Sofia
Christopher Gordon, London
Dorota Ilczuk, Warsaw
Delia Mucica, Bucharest
Nina Obuljen, Zagreb
Reet Remmel, Tallinn
Vojko Stopar, Ljubljana
Corina Şuteu, Bucharest
Baiba Tjarve, Riga
Dimitrije Vujadinović, Belgrade
Back to top
Back to arm's length
