This article was downloaded by: [187.167.19.

220] On: 23 March 2013, At: 22:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Geopolitics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fgeo20

The Value of Europe: The Political Economy of Culture in the European Community
Eliot Tretter
a a

Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas 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 in the 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. Any substantial 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 representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Geopolitics, 16:926948, 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1465-0045 print / 1557-3028 online DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2011.554465

The Value of Europe: The Political Economy of Culture in the European Community
ELIOT TRETTER
Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

During the 1970s and 1980s the cultural sector became one of the primary motors for wealth creation in the European Community. At the European and national scales, a group of actors helped transform Europes vast array of practices and services (tourism, heritage, books, audio-visual products, etc.) into cultural industries and pushed the EC to develop a common cultural policy to support these industries. Documenting these changes at the European scale, I argue that the perceived impact of cultural policy for particular national economic competitiveness was also signicant. Italian MEPs and members of Italys national government were especially important, as they fought to protect the countrys historical heritage and promote tourism. France pushed the strongest and I show how that countrys efforts were primarily intended to protect its audio-visual and publishing industries from the EC internal markets liberalisation policies, which were vocally supported by Britain because they would have served that countys national economic interests.
The Community is certainly the best qualied to provide responses to the 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 an industrial plan, but must afrm itself as a model without precedent in the history of our civilization. What has impeded this goal is the reluctance of citizens to acknowledge the legitimacy and the possibility of an economic community with common values in which they are engaged and to which they are inextricably connected. Simone Veil, Former President of the European Parliament.1

Address correspondence to Eliot Tretter, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Geography and the Environment, A3100, Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail: etretter@mail. utexas.edu 926

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

927

INTRODUCTION
Veil, like many so-called European federalists, was expressing a sentiment about the European Community: It had to become more than an economic institution. While some Europeans may have held this idea for a long time, in the 1980s, European intellectuals and politicians, particularly those whose power was rooted at the European (throughout this paper Europe/European will always refers to the Europe of the European Community) scale, increasingly suggested that a genuinely pan-Europe culture tied the newly emerging European citizens together and that they should make their new state of reference the institutions of the EC.2 How the development of a common European cultural policy relates to the creation of a pan-European identity is often reected in academic studies on the Communitys (Unions) cultural policy, where authors have paid specic attention to how cultural policy redresses Europes chronic identity crisis, underwrites the further integration of the EU, and preserves regional diversity.3 In varying ways, the EC has tried to promote, both directly and indirectly, the cultural and territorial cohesion of the Community, apart from 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, smallartisanship, etc., and legal economic considerations about copyrights or workers protection, which have not been the subject of much academic inquiry.4 Many of the EC statutes, court decisions, memorandums, etc., related to cultural policy, like other sectoral policies, have served to promote the economic innovation and competitiveness of the European cultural sector. Signicant changes in the geopolitical economic environment during the 1970s and 1980s are reected in the ECs concern for the cultural sector. On the one hand, many member states economies, which had suffered from stagation throughout the 1970s, were facing growing competitive pressure from abroad, particularly from Japan and the USA. EC integration had been stagnant throughout much of the 1970s, but the economic integration of the Community accelerated rapidly during the 1980s, as EC member states attempted to take advantage of potential gains from the enlargement of a homogenous internal market for investment and production.5 On the other hand, developed nations were undergoing a macro-structural transition from industrial to post-industrial economies, which resulted in signicant growth in the cultural industries.6 Among other things, post-industrial activities and services included copyrights, entertainment, advertising, tourism, design, telecommunications, and other knowledge-intensive production and symbolically oriented services that were replacing older industrial practices as the primary motors of wealth creation. As developed nations became more and more tied to cultural industries for their economic fortunes, many

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

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 spatial and social restructuring.7 To facilitate this transition, ensure national competitiveness, and continue innovation in the cultural sector, the governments of European states implemented various national policies and strategies.8 The early growth of the Communitys involvement in culture reects both of these trends. Supranationally, the EC was mandated to promote regional competitiveness and an integrated market, and although the Community lacked legal standing (competency), supranational actors increasingly sought to intervene, in a variety of ways, in the cultural sector. National actors also tried to shape the architecture of the newly emerging regional cultural policy framework and block or support different EC interventions, with an eye toward how these actions would affect the changing constitution of their domestic economies. Theoretically, my study is largely drawn from Littoz-Monnet, whose work is sensitive to geographical scale, or a multi-level approach to European governance, and is largely an actor- and interest-based orientation to how policy is formed.9 Littoz-Monnet contends that various actors used the Communitys venues to support their own interests and lock down their own policy preferences, but the behaviour of these actors can only be explained by looking at the growing power of the Communitys institutions in developing policies that affected national actors policy preferences. Moreover, her studies are different from other studies on the development of the ECs cultural policy because of the attention she pays to economics. She is mainly concerned with differing national policy approaches and disagreements over how cultural policy was being transferred onto the European scale, and I would add to her analysis the importance of national economic competitiveness, which was largely reected in how different coalitions of actors sought to respond to the development of cultural policy in different ways. While Littoz-Monnet astutely points out the specic alignment of member-states that backed different Community responses to cultural policy, I would go further and emphasise the perceived or real economic benets to be earned by the member states. In some cases, national and European actors were shing for economic benets from the Community in the form of intergovernmental transfers, but in other cases, policy prescriptions were being sought that were designed to help national industries or workers. Over the past thirty years, the vast literature on the cultural economy has suggested there are complex links between cultural industries and culture. Some scholars have noted how increased investment in cultural heritage and infrastructure might increase peoples identication and concern about their cultural identity.10 Others point out that place-specic cultural practices, 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

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

929

crucial for economic and regional development.11 What these studies make clear 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 space could 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 production and consumption. To be sure, the gradual Europeanisation of cultural policy was the result of the Communitys increasing claims to monopolising European space and history, a fortiori, its culture; however, it also represents a signicant development in economic and social policy that facilitated the intensication of the trade in signs, symbols, images, and design-intensive and knowledge-based industries. The following paper begins by outlining how culture and cultural policy were conceptualised in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1970s is of particular signicance because, as I describe, two parallel ways of characterising culture (one economic and the other anthropological) emerged within the context of the Community and became increasingly blurred. As the growing economic importance of cultural industries during the 1980s demanded attention from the European Community, the Commission sought to intervene into cultural affairs on (purely) economic grounds. In many cases, however, the economic rationale offered by the Commission merely justied interventions into non-economic areas, and cultural policy often operated as a tool to promote a common European identity. However, many of the most important developments in cultural policy were spearheaded in the European Parliament by Italian MEPs, who, in contravention to the literature, seem to have been motivated primarily by social and economic considerations, not a concern for a common European identity. My argument that cultural policy developed, in large measure, for economic reasons is further bolstered by turning to the debates about cultural policy within the Council of Ministers, particularly the signicant discussions around book pricing and audio-visual policy. I argue that the development of cultural policy was, more often than not, related to particular economic concerns, especially those of Italy, Greece, France, and Britain. It is important to stress that during the period under consideration, the Community did not have legal sanction to intervene in cultural affairs. It would only be granted this authority in 1993. As a consequence, the cases of new transnational mechanisms for the redistribution of resources through intergovernmental transfers, regulations, and subsidies have remained signicantly underexplored. The primary data collected for this paper comes from research done at various libraries, particularly the European University Institute in Fiesole, Italy, which is one of the largest archives on European integration. Most of my sources I draw upon in English with some limited use of French sources. I relied largely on primary documents, such as European Commission reports, European Parliament debates, European Court of Justice rulings, and

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

930

Eliot Tretter

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

the statements by the governments of member states available in English. During the period under investigation, the EC consisted of the following ten countries: France, Britain, Ireland, Greece, Luxemburg, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Germany, and Italy; Portugal and Spain joined near the end of the study in 1986. I was not able to investigate primary documents from EC countries and their governments because of a mix of nancial, time, and linguistic constraints. Additionally, much of the research comes from secondary sources available in English, such as newspapers and magazines, particularly the wire service Agence Europe (Europe), which is a private international news-press service that has reported the affairs of the European Community since 1953. Europe is widely considered one of the most extensive sources for information on the economic and political integration of the European Community, in part because much of the information it publishes is not available in any other public record.

CULTURE IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: EUROPEAN CULTURAL IDENTITY, CULTURAL INDUSTRIES, AND THE RECONCEPTUALISATION OF CULTURE
Cultural policy was not originally considered an integral part of the programme for European integration. The 1957 Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, mostly outlined provisions for the freer circulation of goods through the elimination of restrictions on imports among its signatory member states. The preamble did declare that the Community was determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, and while it did not mention that Europeans might someday come to have a common cultural union, it did not rule out the possibility. Moreover, the treaty made a special exemption for the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value. By the late 1970s, a growing portion of the economy was the cultural sector, which included telecommunications, book dealing, audio-visual works, copyrights, tourism, hotels, tourist services of various kinds, the private art market, and the work of specialised artisans. In part, as a response to the growth of these industries and the perceived need to solve problems such as art theft and cross-national differences in conditions for cultural workers, the Communitys role in cultural affairs grew, and EC Commissioner Robert Gregoire even noted that the Commission could not hold aloof from the cultural sector even if it wished to.12 At the same time, European culture was also being used in the Community, in the sense expressed by Simone Veil, to refer to a socalled shared set of values and norms held by Europeans that however

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

931

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

ill-dened should become embodied in the newly formed institutions of the Community.13 However, while there were many who believed that the institutions of the Community should be stewards for preserving and/or enhancing 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 signicant changes in the 1970s, as many intellectuals and politicians, such as Michel de Certeau, Hans Georg Steltzer, Walter Scheel, Jack Lang, Raymond Williams, Hugh Jenkins, Melina Mercouri, and many more, sought to reconceptualise culture and break down the distinction between high and low culture, a distinction that was being further eroded by the development of the culture industries (e.g., print and broadcast media, recorded music, design, private art markets, digital technology, art, and cultural tourism).15 A European Commission 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, it is now reckoned to include genres which were previously considered minor 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 scientic 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 genres is important for two reasons: (1) it provided the economic rationale for the Community to develop a cultural policy; (2) it made it much harder to characterise exactly what it meant to promote European culture. Take the comments of former Commission President Jacques Delors in 1985, in his rst address to the European Parliament:
The culture industry will tomorrow be one of the biggest industries, a creator of wealth and jobs. Under the terms of the Treaty, we do not have 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 of television programmes. We have to build a powerful European culture industry that will enable us to be in control of both the medium and its content, maintaining our standards of civilisation, and encouraging the creative people amongst us.17

Note how Delors was able to suggest that European cultural policy was important for the economic growth of the culture industry; therefore, he argued, it not only fell within the Communitys mandated province, but it also had signicant implications for the development of European social and cultural cohesion.

932

Eliot Tretter

THE ATTEMPT TO CREATE A EUROPEAN CULTURAL IDENTITY: THE DELORS COMMISSION, THE ADONNINO COMMITTEE, RIPA DI MEANA
In 1985 several signicant changes occurred within the European Commission that affected the development of a Community cultural policy. First, although it lacked legal jurisdiction (competence) to codify a cultural policy, the Directorate-General X, Information, Communication, and Culture (a division of the European Commissions independent civil service) was established to develop European-wide solutions to problems in cultural affairs. Second, Jacques Delors became the president of the European Commission, a position he would hold for three terms until 1995. Delors is credited with helping to establish two major institutional reforms that codied the legal framework for the internal market and signicantly expanded the authority of the European Commission and Courts in economic and social policy: the Single European Act of 1986 (the rst major reform of the Community since 1957) and the Treaty of the European Union. Noticeably more interested in addressing the role of the Commission in handling cultural issues during his rst term (19851988), Delors was ultimately successful at securing the legal basis for intervention into cultural affairs in what would become the European Union. Additionally, in 1985, the nal report of the ad hoc Committee on a Peoples Europe, also known as the Adonnino Committee, was delivered 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 internally borderless EC. Among its proposals were creating a European Community emblem, a European anthem (now Ode to Joy), drivers licences, passports, stamps, museums, foundations, logos, a Europe Day, a lottery, and a campaign for a Peoples Europe.18 It is noteworthy that the report linked the need to develop a European culture to the creation of a European citizen, stressing that the citizens of the Communitys member states had not signicantly developed an emotional attachment to the Communitys bureaucracy and, therefore, although they were Europeans, these citizens did not feel European.19 Subsequently, Adonnino was appointed the chair of the public-relations campaign, called a Peoples Europe, which aggressively promoted many of the suggestions made by the report. The Commissions representative advisor to the ad hoc committee for a Peoples Europe was Carlo Ripa di Meana, who had been appointed to the Commission in 1985 and who became the rst commissioner to work directly with the newly formed DG X. In this capacity, notwithstanding the commissions legal limitations in cultural affairs, Ripa di Meana repeatedly asserted that he was the commissioner responsible for European Cultural

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

933

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

Affairs.20 Ripa di Meana, before being appointed to the Commission, had been an Italian Socialist MEP of some stature. Elected in the rst direct elections of the European Parliament in 1979, he became a major gure in the Socialist Party (later he was a leading member of the Green Party) and was a founding member of the Crocodile Club (a very inuential informal group of MEPs founded in 1980 that advocated more federalised European integration and strengthening the powers of the European Parliament).21 Public statements by Ripa di Meana show strong commitment to the idea of using cultural policy to cultivate allegiance to the EC. In 1985, for instance, Europe reported, According to Mr. Ripa di Meana, what was really at stake for European culture and for Europe as a whole is the Communitys capacity to mobilise modern methods of communication to widely circulate European cultural products, in order to bring forth the emergence of a European cultural identity (underline in original).22 The Adonnino report and the comments by Ripa di Meana have been used by scholars to argue that European cultural policy developed in the 1980s as an attempt to create a common set of European symbols in order to engineer a European identity and facilitate a European-state building effort.23 Although the Community offered economic justications for its involvement in cultural affairs, according to this argument, the Delors Commission was really supplementing di Meanas efforts to revive interest in the institutions of the Community and the motor potential of the commission to promote European integration. However, this characterisation is decient because (as I will show in the following sections) the development of a Europeanwide cultural policy was more than a means of engineering a pan-European identity; it was also related to economic considerations and how these considerations were related to real or perceived economic returns that were at stake for the competitiveness of the Communitys member states then struggling to dene what constituted an appropriate European-wide cultural policy.

THE CULTURAL SECTOR IS NOT CULTURE: THE EUROPEAN FOUNDATION AND COMMUNITYS ACTION IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR
European cultural policy can be traced back approximately twenty-ve years before the rst Delors Commission, as early as 1961, when the European Parliament (formerly the Assembly) was given the opportunity to extend its course of action towards new domains, with the focus on reinforcing the European Union.24 About a decade later, in 1973, after the Communitys member states signed the Declaration of Copenhagen, pronouncing a common European identity, the Parliament passed a resolution concerning the safeguard of European cultural heritage, which had been conceived by

934

Eliot Tretter

British Conservative and Unionist Party MEP Diana Elles.25 With this resolution, at least one commentator suggested, Cultural questions began to truly become an integral part of parliamentary concerns as both economic and social questions.26 The push to expand the Communitys involvement into cultural policy began to advance signicantly in 1977, when, due to pressure from the Parliament, the Commission published two reports.27 The rst concerned the prospects of creating a foundation called The European Foundation. The idea had rst been advanced in 1976, in the Tindemans Report, which had outlined the legal, technical, and administrative criteria for creating a foundation to promote a common European cultural awareness.28 All rhetoric aside, 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 the citizens of our countries responsible Europeans with a sense of their common destiny (italics in the original).29 The proposal to establish the foundation was strongly backed by parliamentarians, particularly from Italy and France.30 However, it was never created because the resolution that would have allowed for its establishment failed to pass in the Dutch Parliament in 1987, despite having been ratied by nearly all the governments of the ECs member states; according to Europe, this failure was in part the result of objections that the foundation would have unnecessarily duplicated existing EC activities.31 Over the previous ten years, many of the goals of the European Foundation outlined in the Tindemans report had found their way into other Community initiatives, such as the inclusion of tax concessions for private contributions to cultural programmes and numerous programmes to support tourism. Although many passages from the European Foundation report support the contention that the basis of European cultural policy was primarily symbolic and about engineering a sense of European identity, another document published in 1977, titled Community Action in the Cultural Sector, does not. Concerning itself with the growing economic importance of the cultural sector and the securing of better economic conditions for cultural 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 issues such as architectural restoration, cultural exchanges, and the promotion of socio-cultural activities at a European level.32 The report was signicant because it offered a legal justication for Community interventions in cultural affairs by suggesting that just as the cultural sector is not in itself culture, European Community action in the cultural sector does not constitute a cultural policy.33 While the Communitys potential actions were presented as a European-wide concern, it was nevertheless clear that some member states might gain more than others. The report, for instance, cited the number of private cultural goods stolen between the years 1970 and 1974. Italy ranked

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

935

number one with just under 11,000 thefts, while Luxemburg, over an even longer period, had only 140. In the theft of archaeological artifacts, the statistics were even more striking. Italy, which the report noted was particularly rich in archeological heritage, lacked the means to preserve it, and between 1970 and 1974, the country had over 40,000 stolen objects recovered.34 The Europeanisation of rules, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms and/or money spent for handling the theft of art, therefore, would benet Italy much more than other member states such as Luxemburg.35

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

ITALIAN MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE CREATION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE, TOURISM, AND WORKERS
European parliamentarians have been the most vocal supporters for expanding the powers of the EC, a dynamic that grew stronger after parliament was directly elected in 1979. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, MEPs also strongly pushed for the development of a European-wide cultural policy, and one might suppose that there was a tendency by MEPs to endorse these policies because 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 and early 1980s, the European Parliaments attempts to advance the Communitys role in cultural affairs were spearheaded disproportionately by Italian MEPs, most of whom were members of the Socialist Party or Communist Party. Party afliation seems to be important for at least two reasons. On the one hand, as other authors have noted, Communists and Socialist MEPs from all countries, but particularly Italy, were at the forefront of campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s to expand the powers of the Community.37 On the other hand, the justications offered for Community interventions, primarily from these MEPs, were primarily economic and Sandell went so far as to characterise them as quasi-Marxist.38 National origin was also important, as it was Italian MEPs across the political spectrum who were often the most outspoken and proactive in pushing for the development of an EC cultural policy. For instance, in 1979 Socialist MEP Giuseppe Amadei sponsored a report in the Parliament that called for Community action in the cultural sphere as a whole and asked that funds be provided to enable this action to be continued.39 Following the Amadei report, in 1981, other Italian MEPs, such as Socialist Gaetano Arf, Christian Democrat Mario Pedini, and Communist Giovanni Papapietro, played an important role in having French UDF Parliamentarian Marie-Jane Pruvot prepare a report on the necessity of having the commissions Ofce of Statistics compile information about the social situation

936

Eliot Tretter

of workers in the cultural sector in order to demonstrate that more focus was needed for the cultural sector at a Community level to protect cultural workers.40 Statistical evidence in the report showed that the cultural sector 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 percent of the Community budget be dedicated to cultural affairs.41 Signicantly, although the so-called Fanti Report focused on ensuring that proper social standards were being adhered to in the cultural sector, the parliamentary resolution placed no limits on how the money appropriated for cultural policy could be spent.42 The Italian government had been an active supporter of plans to codify the Communitys role in the preservation of European cultural heritage.43 If a Community cultural policy were developed, there would surely be tangible material benets for Italy. According to UNESCO, Italy was estimated to have nearly 60 percent of the most important works of art and cultural heritage and 50 percent of the archaeological sites in the world, and in 1975 Italy had established a Ministry for Cultural Property (with more than 20,000 employees) to manage much of this large cultural infrastructure.44 Problems with maintenance of this infrastructure were routine, particularly because of a lack of funds, and the large bureaucracy was often unwieldy.45 Complementing this national effort, I would suggest, Italian MEPs supported the establishment of a European cultural policy because it helped to develop new sources of nance and support, particularly for architectural and archeological heritage.46 Such a conclusion about the role of Italian MEPs in relation to the development of European cultural policy is consistent with Scholls ndings in his study of the European Parliament and European Regional Developments Funds (ERDF), undertaken in the early 1980s. He showed that MEPs did try to inuence the selection and allocation of ERDF funds and also reform present regulations and seek new proposals.47 In 1983 Italy was the largest single recipient of Community investment in historic preservation; of the approximately 2.5 million ECUs earmarked by the Commission or the ERDF for historic and architectural preservation, Italy received just about half.48 Cultural tourism was also increasingly considered an essential part of European economic competitiveness, especially for Italy. A 1986 Commission report on the economic and social impact of tourism highlighted its growing importance. It would be wrong, the report noted, to take Community tourism for granted . . . without fearing competition from 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

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

937

in a complete cycle of exploiting its potential to the full. This would include not only the discovery, preservation, restoration, maintenance and organised use of cultural resources but also the application of new technologies specically adapted for the purpose and appropriate modern training for those employed in these sectors. In the framework of Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMP), the Community may nance not only the building and moderisation of hotels, rural accommodation and other installations and infrastructure related to tourism development, but also promotional, publicity, and touristic animation activities.50

The same study estimated that Italy had the largest revenue from international 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 its foreign exchange coming from tourism than any of the other six original members of the Community.52 In terms of international tourism as a percentage of GDP, in 1981 Italy had the highest receipts (2.1 percent) and the highest receipt as a percentage of exports (8.6 percent) of all the Community member states.53 While this revenue was not limited to cultural tourism, the commercialisation of Italys large Renaissance and Roman cultural infrastructure, whether in the form of works of art or architecture, was understood more and more to be of growing economic signicance.54 A study done by Pearce on ERDF grants or assistance for tourismrelated projects for the period 19751985 showed Italy and Greece were the main beneciaries of newly formed European intergovernmental transfers for tourism. During that time, Italy received the second largest amount of grant money, about 48 million ECUs. Britain received the lions share of the funds, about 61 percent (153 million ECUs) of all the ERDF funding for tourism, which mainly went to urban areas and was largely a reection of preexisting payments to the UK as a part of the rebate that Margaret Thatcher had won as a concession in 1984 from the Community. More telling than Italy was Greece, which came in a distant third, receiving about 14 million, but which had only been eligible for these funds since 1981, when it joined the Community. Each remaining member state received less than 14 million ECUs; both Ireland and Denmark got less than a million. It is important to note that these patterns may not represent new sources of intergovernmental transfers because these grants were largely grafted on to the existing geographical distribution of ERDF funds; Italy and Britain were already the primary beneciaries of ERDF support, and in Italy the majority 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 conference and exhibition facilities to convert industrial areas, which were already receiving ERDF funds.55 Nevertheless, Greece beneted from the

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

938

Eliot Tretter

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

Communitys new economic commitment to tourism. Like Italy, that countrys economic prosperity was greatly tied to the commercialisation of its cultural infrastructure.56 Cultural workers were dened very broadly in 1982 by the parliamentary resolution as creative artists (writers, composers, painters, sculptors, craftsmen. . . .), and the performing artists: actors, singers, dancers, and musicians, a denition that included many people employed, directly or indirectly, in cultural tourism.57 In 1985 Italy was estimated to have the second largest number of full-time tourism employees (about 140,000) in the Community, surpassed only by Frances approximately 150,000.58 Moreover, it was estimated that tourism-related jobs made up about 7 percent of Italys national employment about the same as France and Greece but markedly higher than Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands, which were all below 4.5 percent.59 Despite the fact that not all people employed in the tourist trade were cultural workers, the parliamentary measures that sought to codify stronger standards and protections for people employed in the cultural sector would have had direct impacts on poor living conditions and the lax enforcement of labour laws for a great number of Italians working in the tourist sector, now classied as cultural workers. Additionally, expanding the Communitys involvement in the cultural sector by harmonising working standards, creating mechanisms for enforcement, and developing new regulations would have beneted Italian craftsmen, who had also been reclassied as cultural workers by Parliaments expansive denition. Italys economic growth during the 1980s was strongly connected to its unique cultural infrastructure, or at least its particular cultural traditions, which helped maintain a system of industrial districts fuelled by small artisanal networks.60 Reclassifying craftsmen (artisans) as cultural producers made them eligible for protection and support that might have been forbidden under EC internal market regulations concerning national government support of industrial activities. In 1985, for instance, the European Social Fund was permitted to extend nancial support to cultural workers.61

THE CULTURAL BLOC: THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, THE MEETINGS OF MINISTERS OF CULTURE
In the previous section, I showed how cultural policy developed in a number of separate but conjoining areas, from cultural tourism to cultural workers, and suggested that perceived economic returns were also a signicant factor though not the only one in why many Italian MEPs were key supporters of the development of a Community cultural policy. In the remaining part 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

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

939

how the main areas of disagreement among the leaders of the member states in the development of a European cultural policy concerned the impacts of new 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 the departments known as the Directorate-Generals (DGs) and Commissioners. The DGs civil servants were independent and not accountable to national electors or parties, and commissioners, while their past and potentially future careers were inuenced by these groups, were appointed to the Commission to serve the Communitys interests. In contrast, the Council of Ministers, consisting of representatives from each member states national government who were accountable (in some fashion) to national electors and parties, 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 is important to know that between 1973 and 1986 the Communitys membership grew beyond the six original member states of France, West German, Italy, Luxemburg, Belgium, and the Netherlands. In 1973 Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Denmark joined, followed by Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986. These enlargements meant not only that the Council had to adjust to more members, and potential sources of conict, but also that the decision-making powers of each individual member state were diminished. In the early 1980s, national governments disagreed over whether European cultural ministers should even meet within the Council. In 1981, Frances Mitterrand government announced that it was supporting Italian Republican Party Prime Minister Giovanni Spadolinis suggestion to hold an informal meeting of the ministers of culture from the governments of the Communitys member states.63 However, it was not until 1982 that the European Council held an informal meeting among the cultural ministers in Naples at the invitation of Italys minister of culture, Vincenzo Scotti, a Christian Democrat, who was supported by Socialist Jack Lang of France and Melina Mercouri, the Greek minister of culture.64 The Commission was represented 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 taxation for cultural goods and services, the free exchange of cultural assets, the improvement of the standard of living and working conditions for cultural workers, and the conservation of architectural heritage.65 The ministers who supported the meeting encountered strong opposition from Denmark, the UK, and Germany because representatives from those countries did not see the need for State or Community inventions in cultural policy.66 Undeterred, France, Italy, and Greece continued to push for the Council to hold ofcial meetings among cultural ministers. In 1983 these countries received a boost from the signing of the Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart (the

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

940

Eliot Tretter

Genscher-Colombo Plan), which, in addition to calling for cooperation in the creation of a common European foreign policy, contained a small section on cultural cooperation (calls for a common foreign policy had increased, in part, because a second Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union had been escalating since the late 1970s).67 With the momentum of the signing of the Genscher-Colombo Plan and the backing of important MEPs, such as Guido Fanti, conspiring against them, the opposition ceded one year later, and the Council held its rst formal meeting among the European Ministers of Culture in Luxembourg, chaired by Lang. The main issues discussed at the meeting were the ght against audio-visual piracy, private copyrights on works of art, the possibility of Community subsidies for cultural industries in the form of grants and loans, economic preferences given to Community cultural productions, common standards concerning the broadcasting and distribution of lms, and cultural cooperation.68 The ght against audio-visual piracy was the only area where there was consensus for Community action.69 Within the Council, support for developing a Community cultural policy 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, were often reluctant to weigh in on the development of a European-wide cultural policy and at times supported and other times opposed the so-called cultural bloc. Signicantly, the oppositions concerns were not about the growing power of the Community, the erosion of national difference, or the dangers of creating a European identity, although these might have been considerations. Instead, the evidence shows that many of the disagreements were much more about the particular impacts such a policy might have on member states in the redistribution of resources, new forms of economic protectionism, and the gradual enlargement of Community regulations. Take architectural and archeological policy. By 1986, Greece and Italy were the largest recipients of grants and loans from the ERDF and the EIB for the nancing 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 Italy were often presented as the birthplaces of the so-called three grand unifying traditions of Europe Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christendom. By restoring and preserving their architectural and archaeological ruins, the Community was symbolically attempting to construct the idea of a unied European culture on a supposed common historical ground.71 However, Greek and Italian politicians also had a strong national incentive to push the development of cultural policies and programmes: doing so would help their citizens garner more Community funds. Money meant employment, and the restoration of these cultural infrastructures was related to longterm economic fortunes in tourism: although Greece and Italy were not the

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

941

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

DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF EUROPEAN CULTURAL POLICY: THE FRENCH SUPPORT FOR A EUROPEAN-WIDE CULTURAL POLICY, JACK LANG, PROTECTING BOOKS AS CULTURAL ARTIFACTS, AND THE BRITISH SUPPORT FOR A EUROPEAN AUDIO-VISUAL POLICY
The French government was, perhaps, the staunchest supporter of a European cultural policy within the Council. Over the course of the twentieth century, France developed a strong nationally centralised system for promoting its national culture, which became the model for many other European states.72 Its modern system of state intervention began in earnest in the early 1960s, when French President Charles De Gaulle created a department of culture affairs and appointed Andre Malraux, the famed author and statesman, its head.73 After a decline in state nancing and support for cultural programmes under the UDF presidency of Valery Giscard DEstaing in the 1970s, the government of Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, led by his minister of culture, Jack Lang, pursued what Lang called a cultural renaissance.74 In his comprehensive study, David Looseley documents the remarkable transformations that took place in the Ministry of Culture under Langs leadership during the 1980s, particularly how Lang reformulated the importance of cultural policy in France.75 Most visibly, Lang saw a strengthened cultural policy as a bulwark against American dominance, and he was an ardent supporter of the cultural exception (which would have allowed countries to use tariffs, quotas, and subsidies to protect their audio-visual sectors) in the so-called Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in the late 1980s.76 However, Lang, unlike his predecessors in the Ministry of Culture, did not rely on an exclusively high-culture denition of culture but instead vigorously deated the meaning of culture (one critic accused him of making everything cultural). Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, he showed an unwavering commitment to using state institutions (a dirigiste system) to support, protect, and develop the economic potential of the arts and cultural industries in France.77 However, even with these notable changes, the continuity of the French governments commitment to developing a Community-wide framework for cultural policy was remarkable. In both 1977 and 1982, under different national political leadership, the French Government urged the commission to pursue Community action in cultural affairs. Both attempts were blocked.78 In 1981, then President Giscard proclaimed in an interview in Le Figaro, The European identity will be born thanks to culture, and not

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

942

Eliot Tretter

by vague combinations of electoral laws or discussions on Community budgets.79 That same year, newly elected President Mitterrands government 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, which is one of the basic components of the identity of the European peoples, becomes a factor in the Member-states endeavor . . .80 Such sentiments were amplied 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 should perhaps begin with culture.81 Lang often presented the preference for a strong governmental cultural policy as a means of protection from the United States cultural imperialism, most famously at the 1982 UNESCO meeting in Mexico City. But contrary to most commentators, Littoz-Monnet has convincingly argued that Lang (and Mitterrand) was motivated not only by a desire to protect French industries from the external inuences of the USA but also from the freemarket orientation of the EC.82 The Communitys commitment to extending the principles of a common market had begun to encroach upon the French protection of their cultural industries, particularly subsidies and quotas for the audio-visual and book industries. Largely in response to the Community, Lang, according to Littoz-Monnet, proactively attempted to make the French dirigiste model of cultural policy into the European one in order to ensure the continued existence of the framework in France. For instance, at one of the rst meetings of the ministers of culture in the Council, Lang unsuccessfully proposed recognising cultural industries as real industries so grants would be available from the EIB.83 Among other examples, Littoz-Monnet focuses on European bookpricing policies. One of Langs signature achievements was a law adopted in 1981 that required the xing of book prices in France. The so-called Lang Law was subsequently challenged for infringing on competition in the European Court of Justice by the Association des Centres Distributeurs Edouard Leclerc, the owner of several retail outlets in France that sold books for a lower price than was specied by the government.84 The French government contended that, consistent with Community treaties, these restrictive practices were legal and, in fact, necessary to protect books as cultural media from the adverse impact that untrammelled competition in retail prices would have on the diversity and cultural level of publishing.85 While the European Court of Justice disagreed with this interpretation of Article 36, because cultural products were not specically enumerated in that article, it nevertheless sustained Frances right to stabilise the price of books because the court interpreted the competition sections of the European Community Treaty just as narrowly and ruled that they did not prohibit the xing of the price of books by national governments.86 Following the Courts ruling, Lang

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

943

pushed for a European book-pricing system within the Council.87 150 professionals met in Aries at the invitation of the French Ministry of culture, Littoz-Monnet noted, and a text was adopted laying the foundations for a European directive on xed book prices.88 The Commission even drafted a report about the possibility of a common-market xed-priced system for books, although it tended to downplay the effectiveness of price xing.89 While Langs predilection toward regulating book pricing was supported by a 1981 resolution in the Parliament stating that the book sector should not be governed only by economic imperatives, his attempt was blocked by other member states.90 Moreover, Lang attempted to develop a Community-wide cultural policy that would have followed France in subsidising European lm and television, in part to limit the encroachment of American (English-language) cinema and television shows.91 In 1983, French companies produced around 131 lms, a greater number than Italy, Germany, or the UK, but overall, French lm production had declined substantially since 1973, when French companies had produced 180 lms.92 The lackluster performance of French cinema outside of the French-speaking world was attributed to the growing number of lms produced in the USA that were being consumed in Europe and abroad. In 1984, France and Germany reached a lm co-production agreement, and in 1984 Lang proposed that in this sector [lm], rather like in the CAP [Common Agricultural Policy], a levy be established on audiovisual lms bought abroad; the example set by the Franco-German lm co-production fund should be extended at the Community level. Again, the Council did not reach an agreement on lm production, but Lang played a crucial role in developing an institutional framework for later EC interventions into the audio-visual sector.93 Lang was attempting to develop a Community cultural policy in order to foreclose other alternative models, in part because of pressure from the Commission, especially in the audio-visual sector. In 1984, the Commission released a Green Paper called Television Without Frontiers (TWF ), which called for the elimination of national barriers for broadcasting and other impediments to the free movement of television programmes in the internal 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 the Communitys most ambitious cultural policy initiatives. The French staunchly opposed TWF , in part because of its potential impact on the French cultural sector. Frances strong support for the development of Community interventions into cultural affairs, therefore, should not be understood as merely a preference for a strong dirigiste system of intervention into cultural policy or even just a penchant among the French for culture; instead, it was largely related to a strong national interest in developing new forms of support for its cultural sector. In contrast, while the British had repeatedly objected to the cultural blocs proposed interventions into cultural matters,

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

944

Eliot Tretter

they strongly backed the TWF initiative, in part because of its perceived potential 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 release of the TWF report, in 1985, Britain accounted for an estimated 70 percent of total Community audio-visual exports.96

CONCLUSION
I have been arguing that the development of the Communitys cultural policy was like any other industrial policy designed to ensure the Communitys economic competitiveness and place at the top of the global economic hierarchy for investment and production. In the geopolitical struggle with the United States and Japan, the development of a cultural policy was imperative because knowledge and services were becoming the centrepieces of what would later be called the new economy. While new European mechanisms for the intergovernmental transfers of wealth, subsidies, and forms of protectionism were crucial to developing unied transnational solutions, perceptions of the impact of the EC policies on national competitiveness remain important to understanding how and why EC cultural policy developed. Italian members of parliament played a crucial role in supporting the development of the ECs cultural policy, were able to develop new mechanisms for intergovernmental transfers of revenue, and also tried to raise the living standard for workers in the cultural sector. The national politicians of Italy and Greece strongly backed these parliamentarians, as their countries became the main recipients of money dedicated to the restoration and maintenance of European patrimony. While perhaps beneting from these new cultural policies, the French went further and attempted to make the architecture of the Communitys cultural policy resemble their dirigiste system. Their aim was to exclude alternatives and lock in a system they believed would benet their cultural industries by undermining the EJC and the ECs internal market regulations. The French also attempted to claim sole ownership over the content and form of a European cultural policy, which meant they tried to equate not supporting their policy preferences with not supporting a European cultural policy in general. Britain and Denmark opposed many of Frances initiatives to create a European cultural policy and were branded anti-European and anti-cultural as a consequence. But I have shown that the British did, in fact, favour the creation of a European cultural policy but only when that policy stood to help British national competitiveness. Furthermore, while this paper has outlined the economic stakes in the development of EC cultural policy, it suggests how new forms of

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

945

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

transnational governance may have inuenced the remaking of national economics. European economies are ever more invested in the development of the cultural industries, whether these are the audio-visual sector or cultural tourism.97 European economic integration appears to have been a signicant condition for cultural practices in the ECs member states if they wanted to become enveloped in the economic logic of interstate competition. While the Community offered a new, internally homogenous market and mechanisms of economic liberalisation, it also offered a new spatial category that transcended national boundaries and national monopolies on heritage or cultural forms. While national economies continued to maintain their dominance over cultural practices, the ECs policy was essential in inventing the European cultural sector by reclassifying as cultural a range of different types 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 recongured in marketable European products. Nevertheless, national differences from language to monuments to art became more salient attributes for the competitiveness of member-states as they increasingly became exportable products.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Josh Rosenblatt for his excellent copyediting abilities as well as Frank Cody, Arvind Susarla, Robert Paul Resch, David Harvey, Marokot Jewachinda, and two anonymous reviewers for providing useful comments. Also, I would like to extend a special thanks to Emir Lawless, the European University Institute librarian whose help was invaluable in nding 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, Regional Studies 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, Cohesion and Citizenship in EU Cultural Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies 38/3 (2000); T. Risse and D. 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, European Urban and Regional Studies 11/4 (2004); E. Tretter, Scales, Regimes, and the Urban Governance of Glasgow, Journal of Urban Affairs 30/1 (2008); M. Sassatelli, European Cultural Space in the European Cities of Culture, European Societies 10/2 (2008).

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, State Formation 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 and A. Scott (eds.), Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture (London: Routledge 2004); A. Scott, The Cultural 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 European Union 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, Ofcial 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. Burns and 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 Communities Supplement 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 Communities Supplement 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; European Parliament, Parliamentary Resolution for Community Action in the Cultural Sector, Ofcial Journal of the 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 Communities Supplement 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.

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

The Political Economy of Culture in the EC

947

36. McDonald (note 3) p. 50; S. Scarrow, Political Career and the European Parliament, Legislative Studies 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 Working Document (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 Policy 13/1 (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 Communities Supplement 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, Tourist Management 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 Deciencies 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 Recourse to the European Social Fund in Respect of Cultural Workers, Ofcial Journal of European Communities 4/2 (1985). 62. D. Grimm, Does Europe Need a Constitution?, in P. Gowan and P. Anderson (eds.), The Question 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 European Communities 16/6 (1983) p. 28. 68. First Session, Agence Europe, 22 June 1984.

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013

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 la Communaut 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 <www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb. com/converge1.htm>. 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 Book Pricing (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 nal, Brussels, 1985. 90. European Parliament, Resolution on Fixed Book Prices, Ofcial Journal of the European Communities 50/93 (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 nal, 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 <http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc873_en.htm .

Downloaded by [187.167.19.220] at 22:47 23 March 2013