DECENTRALISATION
Decentralization is one of the ways cultural policies embody the value of equality. Although the concept is frequently linked to combating unequal provision of the arts in geographical terms, decentralisation policies are in fact concerned with providing equal opportunities for participation in culture and the arts for every citizen, regardless of his/her residence, physical ability or disability, income, social class, or cultural attributes such as race and gender.
Nobuko Kawashima differentiates between three types of decentralisation: cultural, fiscal, and political. These types of decentralisation bear different relations to the cultural policy process and to the equalisation of cultural actors’ opportunities. Cultural decentralisation is a policy objective. It aims to combat inequality in cultural opportunities among citizens and to promote ‘fair’ distribution of the arts to a wider population. Fiscal decentralisation, on the other hand, is a policy input. It has to do with investing in culture at various levels of government – central, regional, and local – and the uneven distribution of public funds among cultural producers. Political decentralisation is about political and administrative power for making and implementing cultural policy. It is concerned with the disparity of power between different levels of decision-makers and refers to how policy administration is organised.
Heiskannen also points to a difference between ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ decentralisation. Vertical decentralisation is about bringing opportunities, power, and resources downward and closer to people. It presupposes autonomy, i.e., the removal of the centre’s control over a geographical area or segments of a cultural field. It also presupposes self-governance, which refers to independence in goal setting, the use of resources, and the regulation of people and organizations. On the other hand, horizontal decentralisation proceeds ‘sideways’. It includes a division of labour between various ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education), the delegation of tasks and authority from the political centre (e.g., ministries) to special agencies or arm’s length bodies, or a transfer of power from the public to the private and/or civic sectors.
According to Heiskanen, activities focused on the decentralisation of culture tend to be used to: 1) provide equal cultural opportunities for all citizens (which links it to the paradigm of democratisation of culture); 2) educate citizens through inclusion in decision-making processes (which links it to participatory cultural democracy); 3) provide a balance of power and responsibilities between different levels of government and an efficient allocation of resources for artistic and cultural production; and 4) optimise the division of sectoral jurisdictions in cultural administration and the distribution of cultural values through politics, the market, and the voluntary sector.
The value of decentralisation policies is rarely questioned, and it is frequently assumed a priori that they are intrinsically valuable. According to Kawashima, cultural decentralisation is legitimised as a policy objective based on principles of ‘equality’ and ‘efficiency’, as well as its ‘governance value’. Namely, it has become widely accepted that optimising equality constitutes one of the main objectives and principles of cultural policy. In cultural economics, moreover, there are arguments that state interventions promoting fiscal decentralisation are necessary because arts and culture are ‘semi-public goods’, which the market will produce inefficiently, if at all. Finally, it has been argued that political decentralisation can produce ‘governance value’. The idea is that when decision-making is brought closer to the people, it can promote political education, enhance leadership skills, and strengthen local identity.
However, it has been pointed out that local governance is too often romanticised and portrayed as ‘efficient’, more flexible, and more responsive to the needs of citizens, while in actuality it is susceptible to oligarchic tendencies, inefficiency, and low accountability. The danger of identifying decentralisation with changes in the volume of cultural funding between central and sub-central authorities should also be highlighted. The withdrawal of the central authority and the transfer of cultural funding to local authorities could have catastrophic consequences. Finally, one should note that, since the 1990s, new principles and organisational strategies have challenged traditional models of decentralisation. Subsidiarity, which presupposes that decisions are taken at the most competent local level, replaced the principle of autonomy. In addition to ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ decentralisation, practices of diagonal decentralisation, contractual and project-based financing, and the use of quasi-market mechanisms have appeared. At the same time, different policy goals, such as ‘efficiency’ (in economic terms) and individual choice and freedom, have surfaced. (PC)
See also: Equality; Democratisation of culture; Cultural democracy; Globalization and cultural policy