An overview of existing literature as well as insights picked up from various conference reports and the activities of networks and professional organizations has shown that the questions of free movement of people and social security regulations have been debated mostly in the context of enhancing artists’ mobility in the cultural sector. Audéoud made a clear distinction between `obstacles’ and `hindrances’ to the mobility of artists (Audéoud 2002). According to the results of his study there are comparatively few rules and practices preventing cultural workers and their products from moving around the Community area which can be said to constitute real obstacles to the freedom of movement.
More numerous, however, are the shortcomings or other constraints which hamper or are a disincentive to mobility, without actually constituting an obstacle (Audéoud ibid). Audéoud’s research showed that numerous obstacles existed already among `old’ member states, and that all kinds of artists and cultural workers from the new member states have had to deal with additional restrictions to opportunities for their nationals to obtain work in the EU.
The questionnaire yielded a range of responses when it asked, `Can artists and cultural workers from your country freely obtain work in other EU countries without any restrictions?’.
`The issue is complex. On one side artists and cultural workers through work grants and scholarships, may work and study abroad. What’s more, there is a possibility, except getting money for journeys, to get a residency status. On the other side, some countries have restricted the possibility for Polish citizens to obtain work in their country for the future few years (this applies to all professions).’
Generally, respondents believed that free employment in other EU countries was not specifically connected with the cultural sector.
`Most of the EU countries do not yet want to open their labour market fully to people from new EU member states. These issues do not seem to be particularly discussed in the cultural sector.’
(Slovakia)
Some noted that various support schemes, numerous travel grants and other forms of support for mobility were made available, and this indirectly helped to `break down’ some barriers. Several respondents however emphasized that it was difficult to respond to this question, as they were not aware of any reliable data.
In 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted a resolution on exchange of information and experience concerning conditions for professional artists in the context of
EU enlargement.
81
Such resolutions are not legally binding and this one has not had much relevance outside of the cultural sector. Recommendations from this resolution were mostly incorporated in the Union’s policies through funding programmes, Culture 2000 in particular. The questionnaire next asked whether there had been, `any recent changes in the social security regulations relating to artists?’. Again there was a range of responses with several comments about changes that have indeed occurred, but not necessarily as a consequence of the enlargement.`Because of the harmonization with the acquis communautaire, the rules limiting social security benefits for only Slovenian citizens (artists) have been abolished. All artists who are EU citizens are now entitled to receive the same benefits.’ (Slovenia)
`Since 2005 it is not any more obligatory for freelancers to pay the social security and pension levy, of course with all the consequences. But not as a result from accession to the EU.’
(Slovakia)
`A new law on creative workers (passed November, 2004) as a social security measure, it provides support for creative work, which can be paid in an amount corresponding to the minimum wage for a person who is member of one of the creative artists’ unions and who has no other income. The support can be paid during a period of six months and it can be renewed by the same person only after two years have passed from the end of the previous support period. The support will be administered through the unions and they receive for this purpose a fixed sum, which is dependent on their number of members. The same law also
introduces the possibility of making reductions from one’s taxable income for persons who are members of the creative unions.’
(Latvia)
Except for some minor changes, directly linked with the harmonization, such as the Slovenian example, reform of the social security regulations has not been exclusively inspired or influenced by the acquis communautaire. In fact, this issue and its relevance for cultural policy can be examined at two different levels. First, there is the importance of the social security protection regulations for artists within their own country, an issue that is still almost entirely left to each member state to decide. The second issue is how this affects mobility across borders, including not only regulations for EU nationals when working abroad but also those applicable to foreign artists;
82
the diversity of systems creates many obstacles to the free movement of artists.For new EU member states and candidate countries, this issue has also been linked with the question of how to create at least similar opportunities for workers across the EU and how to avoid the negative consequences of social dumping sometimes involving the nationals of some of these countries (Audéoud 2002).