MBA Cultural Policy Comparison - USA, Japan and Canada
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,090 views
This document presents a comparison of cultural policy and funding in Canada, the US, and Japan. It discusses how each country approaches arts funding, whether through public or private means. Key differences are highlighted such as Canada prioritizing national pride and social cohesion, while the US emphasizes public goods and diplomacy. The document also examines cultural complexes in each country, like Harbourfront Centre in Canada, Lincoln Center in the US, and Roppongi Art District in Japan. It concludes by suggesting organizations like Harbourfront Centre could learn from US models to increase private funding while maintaining their missions.
MBA Cultural Policy Comparison - USA, Japan and Canada
- 1. PUBLIC POLICY PRESENTATION CULTURAL POLICY AND CULTURAL COMPLEXES HIROYASU SUDO MARCH 2012
- 2. TODAY’S NEWS
- 3. AGENDA • Issue: Arts Funding • Countries: Canada, the US, Japan • Situations in each country • Cultural complex in each country • Suggestion
- 4. ISSUE: ARTS FUNDING • Arts Funding – Public or Private • Why? – Public Goods, Philanthropy, Diplomacy… • Trend – Decreasing (i.e. Global Competition, The Crisis) • ‘Creative Class’ theory -- Instrumentalism
- 5. CANADA • Objective: National Pride/ Social Cohesion/ Diversity • History: Formed after WWII, American Influence • Type: Public Funding is larger • Culture: Individualistic, slightly socialistic • Trend: Decreasing, yet the scope is broadening
- 6. THE UNITED STATES • Objective: Public Goods, Diplomacy • History: In line with active philanthropy (Carnegie) • Type: Private Funding is substantially larger • Culture: Individualistic, Capitalistic (Democratic) • Trend: Recovering from the Crisis
- 7. JAPAN • Objective: Public Goods, Preservation, Economic Growth • History: Westernization = Modernization, WWII • Type: Public Funding is marginal (fear of public intervention) • Culture: Collectivist, Capitalistic • Trend: Recovering from the Crisis, Collaboration with Private
- 8. COMPARISON Canada USA Japan National Pride/Social Cohesion Public goods Preservation Objective Economic Development Diplomacy Economic Development Policy Change PEF ACF PDF Public/Private 27:23 13:43 6:12.2 ratio 117% 30% 49% Culture Individualist - Socialistic Individualist - Capitalistic Collectivist - Capitalistic • Punctuation Equilibrium: External Influence • Advocacy Coalition: Linear • Path Dependency: Disconnected Evolution • Policy tools: Direct, Indirect, Hybrid
- 9. CULTURE COMPLEX • Cultural Hub • Encourage arts/culture • Provide facilities (Theatre, Gallery, etc.)
- 10. HARBOURFRONT CENTRE • Non-profit (established as a crown company) • Artistic Innovation, Cultural Engagement • 4 Theatres, 2 Galleries • Decreasing Public Funding • Increasing Private Funding
- 11. LINCOLN CENTER • Non-profit (most donation from Rockefeller) • Initiated by The Mayor's Slum Clearance Committee • Urban Renewal • Opera house, Concert Halls, Music School • Marginal Public Funding
- 12. ROPPONGI ART DISTRICT • Mix of Non-profit and For-profit • Economic Development • 3 Museums (2 Private Museums and 1 National Arts Center) • Form the Arts Triangle • Resulted in commercial success
- 13. CONCLUSION • Harbourfront Centre needs to be more commercial • But cannot compromise its mission • Could learn from the US organizations about private funds • Programming should be aimed at ‘creative class’ • The Japan case tells that the government can support the initiative for economic growth <Takeaways> • Country comparison let us see a bigger picture • This leads to deeper understanding of the issue • Results in a better suggestion