Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side of the Ocean?
Knowledge Transfer In Europe

by Uli Sailer

The history of art and culture is full of cross-border exchange. From Orlando di Lasso to Radiohead, artists have crossed borders, and styles and works have been disseminated, adapted and consumed on an international scale. Cross-cultural knowledge sharing in arts administration and cultural policy-making, in contrast, has been much less common.

The funding and administrative structures of arts organizations in European countries are so deeply rooted in each country's history, beliefs, values, tax systems, labor regulations and attitudes towards government that they cannot easily be isolated for simple and direct quantitative comparison. However, the arts sectors in Germany, France, Italy and other European countries are undergoing a process of fundamental structural change that is forcing them to consider a new modus operandi.²⁰

The trends responsible for this transformation include economic globalization and low economic growth rates; the blurring of boundaries between the first (private) and second (public) sector in terms of their responsibilities for the provision of public goods and services; the changing leisure habits of consumers; the erosion of the value system underpinning the "high arts" and the need to navigate multiculturalism. Taking Germany as an example, arts organizations – as entities embedded into municipal or state governments – used to be sustained through reliable single-source public funding, while enjoying a comparably high degree of autonomy in programming. Stagnating or declining public sector support is forcing these organizations to rethink the way they are governed, funded and operate. Many are struggling to strengthen and diversify their income streams by increasing earned income and raising private philanthropic contributions. Some organizations have explored new earned income ventures such as podcasting and intensified their box office sales through professional marketing/PR activities. The establishment of development and fundraising departments promotes private contributions and helps organizations integrate themselves into "civil society." These organizations have been forced to develop new operating models as alternatives to being embedded within public funding agencies and are now endowed with full authority over all functions of the organization while also needing to bear a greater level of organizational risk. This requires an adjustment of the organizational mindset and the leadership's professional skill set. The disappearance of art from school curricula, in tandem with concerns over future demand, has led to the addition of education to program portfolios. Some of these changes have been coming for many years, others are recent, but answers to these challenges are not obvious and the current transition process is likely to continue.

Many in the cultural sectors of European countries are looking abroad for ideas and inspiration on how to make effective change and meaningful innovation in an efficient manner. Public funders, service organizations and conference organizers are commissioning a growing number of research projects and presentations in an effort to draw lessons from other countries. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council in the UK, the Deutscher Orchestertag in Germany, and the Fondazione Rosselli with Formez in Italy have all commissioned comparative work recently. Similarly, many professional associations such as the Fundraising-Akademie are organizing study tours that allow participants to gather first-hand experience abroad. Development and fundraising, audience research and audience development are getting a great amount of attention. Frequently, the comparator is the United States because it provides the most developed and prominent alternative to government funding.

Few arts and cultural organizations in Europe's government funded sectors are experienced at being entrepreneurial and taking their fate fully into their own hands. Take the German example again. Historically, arts organizations enjoyed a greater degree of visibility than in today's crowded leisure markets, and often the prevailing marketing strategy was simply good programming. Public funding without performance agreements shielded organizations from having to "make their case," articulating their raisons d'être or actively advocating for their cause in the public domain. (Indeed, ties to public funders still restrict the degree of self-governance. As one German museum director, a civil servant employed by a city's culture department put it: "It's not just that I am not paid to champion my museum in the public domain, I am paid not to champion my museum.") Compare this to the US or UK: the need to explain and justify funding requests over and over and to a range of potential funders with different agendas has turned US arts organizations into comparably eloquent, resourceful and flexible advocates for their cause to a range of audiences and agendas. In the UK, the mechanics of "arm's length" funding with its performance agreements and evaluation processes has forced arts organizations, for better or for worse, to align with changing political, social and civic agendas.

Public financial support has bailed out more than one organization that ended its year in the red, however, it is fairly clear that it has also created on the recipient's side a formal and psychological dependence on governments that has in turn limited, if not stifled, attempts at self-reliance and entrepreneurialism. The claw backs recently experienced by some organizations with success at fundraising have discouraged leaders from regarding public agencies as partners and from approaching the transition with optimism.

So what should organizations seeking comparative information to inspire innovation and change take into account in order to generate useful results? There is no fool proof recipe for success, but here are several things to keep in mind…

1. Before Even Starting

The desire to come up with creative and innovative solutions based on different cultural contexts needs to come with the willingness and time to put in the necessary effort (and it's a real effort) to learn and to develop a fairly deep and holistic understanding of the comparator country (or countries) on its own terms, with all of the usual complexities and contradictions. Several US fundraisers, for example, have found it frustrating to be interviewed by visiting researchers whose purpose it appeared to be to gather evidence to support premature, one-sided and narrow analyses of, say, the influence on programming and policy of individual philanthropists.

2. Picking the Topic

Different topics require different approaches. In the area of fundraising and marketing, for instance, systems (e.g. IT systems and software) and some professional practices (e.g. conducting market research or direct marketing campaigns) can likely be transferred between different contexts with a relatively modest degree of adjustment. Operating and governance models are another area that generates much interest; here the promise of comparison is more tentative given that these models are often based on national law and the specific architecture of public policy. Donor motivation and "how to make the ask" are highly culture specific and intricately connected with each culture's political, economic and social fabric which prevents direct copying from one country to another.

3. Drafting the Brief

As with all research projects, an intelligent, well-crafted and detailed brief is necessary to generate useful results. This brief need not be formal, nor does the research need to be academic or large-scale, but it should consider not only the information sought, but also its use and the best format for the data. It should also assess limitations to data collection, asking only for what can be realistically generated. This requires considerable insight and effort beforehand, but it will pay off later. For instance, the amount of public spending on arts and culture in the US and European countries is a popular yet problematic data request. Aside from issues with data availability and standardization, some researchers have duly provided a comparison of direct funding, expended through grants or line item appropriations by governments or agencies. Unfortunately, this neglects an important characteristic of US arts funding: A large amount of public support to the nonprofit sector comes in the form of indirect subsidies, i.e. income/estate/capital gains tax incentives granted to individuals in return for philanthropic donations. Not considering a dollar of foregone tax income (i.e. the opportunity cost of tax incentives) a dollar of government "giving" provides an incomplete picture. If those drafting the research brief aren't familiar enough with the subject matter, it is a good idea to involve someone who does in the (re-)shaping of the brief.

4. Choosing the Comparator

As a comparator country the US is often the "no brainer," with its largely privately funded arts and culture sector. Depending on the topic, however, it is worth considering the UK instead, having spearheaded changes in marketing practices and tax legislation, among others, while bearing many cultural similarities with continental European countries.

5. Making the "Transfer"

Much research results in descriptive portrayals of one side of the equation along the lines of "How US museums do marketing" or "Corporate fundraising in the UK." These are interesting, but in order to generate useful knowledge both cases need to be related intelligently along the lines of "What can German museums learn from US museums about marketing" or "Relevant differences between corporate fundraising in the UK and France." Conference hosts as well as those commissioning research projects are well-advised to ensure that presentations put emphasis not only on data collection but also on interpretation. Inviting speakers from a foreign country to speak (only) about that country may not go the full way; it may prove more useful to involve an intermediary or "bi-cultural agent" in the research and dissemination of results, i.e. someone who understands all sides of the comparison, in order to prevent simplifications or misunderstandings and increase the relevance of results.

The transition to a new modus operandi in Europe's cultural sectors will continue to be a journey that requires good will, energy and stamina. Without a clear and meaningful destination, however, the journey cannot succeed. International comparison and inter-sectoral knowledge transfer can help in the design of an innovative, compelling and realistic arts sector for a Europe of the 21^st century.

20  Abundant published research exists on cross-country comparison in the field of political science, following the path breaking Civic Cultures by Almond and Verba, 1963, among other fields. There is also a wealth of literature on statistical cross-cultural comparison in cultural policy. A good overview of the state of the field and helpful tips is provided by:Christopher Madden, “Cross-Country Comparisons of Cultural Statistics: Issues and Good Practice.” Cultural Trends 14/4, No. 56 (December 2005): pp. 299-316.