Discusión por objetivos específicos
Objetivo 1 Evaluación de la efectividad y efectos adversos de la oxibutinina oral para tratamiento de pacientes con
In 1997, New Labour renamed the DNH as the DCMS.38 The term ‘Culture’ had never before been directly referred to within a government department, demonstrating that culture had finally been centrally placed in government policy directives for the first time. The DCMS was set up to approach arts and culture with an inclusivity bent, to aspire to improve the quality of life for all using culture as a catalyst, develop the educational potential of the cultural industries for a range of audiences, and position culture within urban regeneration policies.39 As such, culture became an intrinsic part of government policy. Matarasso’s (1997) research is considered to have been influential in the policies of New Labour in regard to culture. Matarasso addressed the limitations of a purely economic approach to cultural policy as adopted by the Conservative government, and gave evidence that the arts are important to social cohesion objectives, ultimately impacting on health, education, and tourism.40 New Labour’s re-naming of the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) saw the introduction of policy papers which demanded that cultural institutions not only express their ability to deliver to wider agendas, but also to provide evidence of social impact.41 Chris Smith, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, published a book in 1999 which positioned culture directly within government public policy, and asserted its role as a driving influence of economic and social growth. Smith asserts that culture is central to public policy because it provides a “sense of direction”
38 Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Broadening Horizons: An Insight into DCMS. London: DCMS.
2000. p.1-2
39 Labour Party (the). Create the future: A strategy for cultural policy, arts and the creative economy.
London: The Labour Party. 1997.
40 Matarasso, F., Use or ornament? The social impact of participation in the arts. London: Comedia.
1997.
41Selwood, S. ‘Creativity and Innovation in the Cultural Economy: Museums, Galleries and the Visual
Arts’. 219-240. in Creativity, Innovation and the Cultural Economy edited by Pratt, A., and Jeffcutt, P. London: Routledge. 2009.
185
to society and helps us to “think with our hearts as well as with our heads.” He identifies the underpinning ethos of the DCMS through four policy areas, access, excellence, education, and economic value.42 These policy areas formed the basis of what impact museums were to measure over the following fifteen years.
Smith argues that although these focus topics and New Labour’s direction is not dissimilar from that of the previous Conservative government, there is an ideological change due to the addition of compassion to policy planning. He asserts that the Conservative government understood culture as a purely capitalist venture, whereas New Labour sees the value in culture in terms of its potential to be both an economic driver and a social improver. As a result, he identifies the framework for New Labour’s cultural policy as focusing on society and the economy, specifically with a view to placing a value on culture. In terms of economic impact, Smith argues that modernisation and changes in technology support the need for a change in emphasis of economic development as Britain becomes a nation of creative producers. He contends that this refocus will only increase in the future and see a relocation of jobs to these sectors, arguing that public policy has a responsibility to recognise, support, and develop these opportunities for future employment at the same time as fostering cultural experiences for all:
Enhancing the cultural life of the nation will be at the heart of New Labour’s approach. The arts are not optional extras for government; they are at the very centre of our mission.43
In turn, Smith’s successor, Tessa Jowell published a personal essay in 2004 on the value of culture and the imperative of cultural agencies to express their value.44 Street (2011) argues that Jowell moved the policy towards the excellence agenda and away from inclusion, and with rhetoric that suggests the intrinsic value of culture is being placed at the forefront of decision-making. Belfiore (2009) argues that the rhetoric, however, only demonstrates that Jowell was actually continuing to move along the same path as Smith, towards proving the worth of culture against a range of wider
42 Smith, C. Creative Britain. London: Faber & Faber. 1998. pp.22-24. 43 Ibid. p.2 and pp.22-24.
44 Jowell, T. Government and the Value of Culture. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
186
economic and social objectives, and at direct odds with intrinsic value.45 This is evident in the DCMS publication Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life
which states that “It is important to acknowledge the intrinsic value of culture. But how do we measure and understand cultural value?”46 This statement suggests culture is valued for its own sake but also insists that it is measured for its latent value. In essence, Jowell demonstrates that the two go hand in hand, rather than as directly competitive agendas.
Consequently, although cultural activity began to be positioned as an important element for government funding, the need to evidence the impact of cultural activity in return for that funding became paramount. Therefore, organisations which could demonstrate they appealed to new and different audiences and supported regional and economic growth at the same time as encouraging learning and community cohesion, were better placed to receive public support than those which did not. The reach of New Labour’s impact agenda was two-fold. Firstly to organisations funded by central government and through funding agreements which asked them to demonstrate their impact directly to the DCMS in return for financial support. One of the main measurement indicators used was set in the form of number of museums visitors. Secondly, through performance indicators set out by local authorities to the museums funded as part of their Local Area Agreements (LAAs) set out in partnership with government.47 Instigated by New Labour to ensure the spending of public money was properly accounted for, LAAs consisted of a number of performance indicators by which the success of local authority services was measured. This included using museum activity to support indicators around wider agendas, for example education performance, and also an indicator specifically linked to the number of museum visits. A briefing paper published by the London non-departmental public bodies in 2006
45 Belfiore, E. ‘On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research: notes from the British case’.
International Journal of Cultural Policy 15, no.3 (2009): pp.343–359; Street, J. ‘The popular, the diverse and the excellent : political values and UK cultural policy’. International journal of cultural policy 17, no.4 (2011): pp.380-393.
46 Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Understanding the Future. Museums and 21st Century Life: A Summary of Responses. London: DCMS. 2005. Accessed on June 1st 2014.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/understan ding_the_future_responses.pdf
47 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Online. 2008. National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships: Handbook of Definitions. London: DCLG.
187
demonstrates that there was significant advocacy needed by museums towards local authorities to encourage them to specify within their LAAs that museums were relevant to their indicator targets. Ultimately, unless museums featured as a target, it was unlikely that significant funding would be directed to support museum activity.48 Conversely, only by convincing local authorities that they were able to achieve these targets, were museums likely to be included. Therefore, the increased need to demonstrate visitor numbers and additional targets meant that museums themselves needed to demonstrate increased impact against these targets in return for investment.
Consequently, the DCMS of the New Labour government, led by Smith and Jowell, introduced the idea that culture has a ‘public value’, and defined the instrumentalist approach for cultural production, a concept that was not at odds with the cultural sector as a whole. The opportunities presented by placing value on culture included an increased investment for culture, however, some felt that this compromised cultural activity because there was a need to respond to external agenda’s, rather than a focus specifically on cultural production in its own right. Therefore, during New Labour’s term of office, the instrumentalist approach to culture was firmly rooted in the delivery of cultural provision. Before discussing the effect of the need to express impact on museums in-depth, it is first necessary to further examine the debate between the instrumentalist approach and the intrinsic values of culture to understand the motivations behind the instrumentalist approach, and the implications of using such an approach to inform cultural policy.