ESSnet on Culture statistics 2009-2011
Task Force 1: Framework and definitions
Final Report
(draft version, May 2011)
1. Introduction: TF1 and its challenges
The aim of the whole ESSnet project is to establish an expert network working on the following areas:
-developing a common methodology essential to the generation of comparable statistical cultural data;
-expanding data generation using existing harmonised European surveys;
-reviewing the production of new indicators;
-sharing national experiences to ensure better and more exhaustive data analysis.
Within the network, Task Force 1 was responsible for developing a reflection on the delimitation, structure and extension of the cultural field, on the basis of the LEG definition and by taking also into account the new 2009 UNESCO framework.
The many technological changes that have taken place in recent years specifically affect cultural activities: digitization not only leads to changes in innovation and industrial processes (impact on different branches, upstream with the creation of cultural goods as well as with their production and dissemination) but also in cultural practices (equipment and uses, social networks, consumption, etc..) mingling the role of producers and consumers, of amateurs and professional. Furthermore, new technologies have led to changes in the economies of cultural sectors (organization of production and distribution models) as well as to new public policies considerations (copyrights, funding of culture, access to digital society, education and social cohesion , etc.).
Last but not least, some statistical tools have also evolved, e.g. with new versions of statistical classifications.
It is therefore necessary to update the European framework for cultural statistics previously defined by the LEG in 2000. To delimit the scope of culture is the first step to provide European statistics with a sound and common framework with the aim of producing comparable European data, that can next fit with the UNESCO ones.
To end with, TF1 tasks are included int he present general European policy context: on the one hand, the demand of policy makers for statistical information on culture was confirmed in the EU Work plan for Culture 2011-2014 which identifies cultural statistics as one of its six priority areas[1]: «Priority area F: Culture Statistics».
On the other hand, the new economic strategy "Europe 2020" of the European Union, a strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, promotes growth based primarily on knowledge and innovation, and favours social cohesion and sustainable development (see the conclusions from the Budapest – European Council, 20 May 2011).
Although it is widely recognized how difficult it is to define and measure culture, the setting-up of a renewed and common framework for producing comparable data is therefore fundamental to justify the need for information in the cultural field, to conduct studies and help decisions makers: this was the challenge that TF1 had to meet.
2. Presentation of the objectives of TF1
TF1 had to define and structure the framework of cultural activities, that is to say, choose what would be the activities considered as cultural and organise them into a conceptual matrix. This was the main and prior objective of TF1, and as the project needed general agreement it was presented to different groups (within ESSnet, participants and members as well as to Steering committee members, at Eurostat ‘working group Culture’ meetings and in other European meetings (e.g. at the EU presidencies meetings).
The choices to include or exclude cultural activities (in/from the framework) were based on practical grounds, mainly on the existence of codes in statistical classifications enabling to pick out cultural activities. The challenge was clearly not to propose new definitions of culture, one more within a variety of concepts already existing.
As a matter of fact the second objective of the whole ESSnet was to propose a framework allowing to produce regular comparable statistics on culture at European level. In that sense, the use of existing tools and sources (harmonized surveys above all, for their legal feature, hence their quality) were preferred.
Once the activities selected and organised into a framework, available European sources for the collection of data were identified as well as lacks of sources. If European harmonised data collections are missing other possible institutions gathering data were examined, bearing in mind the objective of quality, comparability and regularity.
3. The situation before TF1
Despite the difficulties lying in defining culture, the European Union adopted its first statistical information system on culture with the Leadership European Group (LEG) active in 1997-2000 (see Eurostat working papers n° 3/2000/E/N°1’): it is therefore clear for the ESSnet to structure its new framework on this prior, recognised and approved LEG heritage.
With the LEG as its starting point, TF1 looked up for a general definition used for outlining the 2000 framework but no definite one was written at that time, regarding the complexity of the duty. The LEG has delineated domains (e.g. visual arts, museums, libraries, theatres) but no general concepts.Within that scope, eight domains and six functions were kept by the LEG in order to possess a common and practical basis for measuring culture: «The inclusion or exclusion of certain areas in the LEG's common field was only partly a matter of theory. The first target was to select real cultural "domains" which could be not only analysed and compared but, more importantly, inserted into an operational framework which national and European policymakers could use immediately.» (Eurostat Working papers n°3/2000/E/N°1, page 6).
This conclusion and this approach was maintained by TF1 that used the LEG domains and functions to start its studies.
The LEG ‘domain’ covers different modes of expression, of which the LEG listed eight, namely: heritage, archives, libraries, books and press, visual arts, architecture, performing arts, audio/audiovisual and multimedia.
Cultural activities for each domain have then been established according to their economic function. Admittedly, this economically-based approach to culture may appear reductive, but its aim is to respond to the demand for cultural statistical analysis in Europe. The economically- based approach is moreover the one taken by UNESCO in the scope of its new cultural field in 2009. Besides domains, the LEG cycle is based on six functions: preservation, creation, production, dissemination, trade and education.
Another framework was at the root of the ESSnet studies: in 2009, UNESCO updated its framework, the new Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS). When comparing the 2000 LEG framework and the 2009 UNESCO one, the core usually admitted cultural activities are included in both framework: heritage, performance, books and press, audiovisual, visual arts, design and architecture. Yet, their gathering in a conceptual group is often different since LEG and UNESCO definitions of the primary unit differ. In the UNESCO FCS, the unit mixes domains (e.g. fine arts) with activities (e.g. architectural services) and products (videogames). Along the minimum set of 6 core domains, the UNESCO also defines transversal domains (equipment, archiving and preserving, ICH) and related domains (tourism, sports and recreation).
In conlusion regarding the cultural breadth, the 2009 FCS includes the eight LEG domains, and, due to its broader status, goes beyond them by adding natural heritage, crafts trade in general, telecommunications (from software to web portals) and creative service activities such as advertising[2]. Notions of related domains, whose primary component is not cultural («Sports and Recreation and Tourism are not always considered cultural activities, however, they do contain cultural elements. In other words, they represent activities that may have a cultural character but their main component is not cultural.», FCS page 28) include leisure, sports and tourism activities (the LEG did not include sports activities but participation to sports events were used for measuring cultural practices). Finally, the creation of atypical so-called ‘transversal domains’ in the UNESCO FCS recognises another cultural area: intangible heritage.
Education, Archiving, and Equipment are also defined by the UNESCO FCS as transversal domains whereas their status is different as that of the LEG. Education and Archives are also part of the LEG, Archives being one of the cultural domains and Education being a ‘function’.
The 2000 LEG framework defined six functions that meet the cultural cycle of the 2009 UNESCO FCS. UNESCO presents a whole cultural cycle covering the interconnections of 5 processes going from creation, production, dissemination, exhibition/reception/transmission to consumption/participation. Moreover, the processes of the UNESCO FCS are understood in a broad economic sense in such way that it leads to keep extended forms of activities and not only cultural ones (manufacturing and wholesale, for instance). On the contrary, the LEG framework did not use the concept of supply and demand cylce but clearly emphasized specific cultural functions (creation, production, disemination but also preservation and education) allowing to pick out cultural activities.
This last point is the one that was also favoured by the ESSnet, as the importance of functions[3] is linked with the necessity and choice of structuring a framework of cultural activities that can be measured and compared (this choice will be developed in the following chapters).
As for Equipment and Supporting Materials, the UNESCO FCS defines this transversal domain as the “tools of cultural products and activities” to distinguish them from cultural products («equipment and supporting materials are related to the supporting industries, as well as ancillary services (even if only partially cultural in content), FCS page 28). Durable goods were only considered in the LEG approach from the perspective of household expenditure.
Therefore, the differences between the 2000 LEG and the 2009 UNESCO FCS are few and are mainly due to the international status of UNESCO FCS which needs to focus on diversity, leading to deepen its field to various sectors and several economic markets. The differences are of two kinds: on the one hand they refer to related/transversal groups that UNESCO itself does not really label cultural («In other words, they represent activities that may have a cultural character but their main component is not cultural.», FCS, page 28): equipment and supporting materials, tourism, sports and leisure;
and on the other hand to detailed sub-domains: natural heritage, traditional heritage, general artisanal products, fairs and feasts, printed matter in general, podcasts, social networks and internet portals, software, advertising.
These differences will fuel the works of ESSnet-TF1 for constructing the new 2011 European framework, a framework to be measured and compared.
Figure 3.1- Cultural domains: the 2000 LEG compared to the 2009 UNESCO
4. Presentation of TF1 method of work
In order to define a method that will conduct to the production of comparable data for a common knowledge of the cultural sector in Europe, a conceptual framework for culture must be agreed upon.
Should we completely rethink the debate about culture, and start with the question: what is culture? Obviously, culture can not be easily defined as a homogenous, logical and clearly-defined sector which could moreover be easily described by statistics.
Firstly, culture is not the outcome of an economic sector which gathers products or services, either in terms of production or dissemination. Cultural activities often cross several economic sectors (e.g. industry, services, communications and trade sectors, etc).
Secondly, culture encompasses very various social practices currently recognised as cultural within a specific group and even these social conventions are evolving ones. It represents the values of individuals, their own aesthetic and philosophical representations and, at a more collective level, all the ways of understanding a people’s identity.
Cultural activities are thus diverse, with points of view being still more numerous and varying more widely since they often follow social, economic standards and divergent national institutional policies. For academic issues, it is necessary to carry out empirical research but for this statistical work, TF1 privileged already existing notions and intuitive acceptance of culture.
Then, what are the concepts of culture?
> The UNESCO definition states that ‘Culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.’ (UNESCO, 2001)
The expert report on sources for the 2007 pocket book on culture lists the criteria often used to define the cultural feature:
1/ the ‘creativity’ criterion – in the sense of the ability to create or invent – would seem to be too broad, since any innovation of whatever kind implies by definition a measure of creativity, so that any industry whatever would qualify as being 'creative'. The criterion of creativity would need to be further defined before it could be used.
2/ the notion of intellectual property is frequently used: it is intended to ensure legality in the use of certain cultural goods which can easily slip into the public domain, such as music via the Internet, books and films.
However, intellectual property is divided into two categories: a) industrial property (which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and b) copyright also related as ‘author’s rights’, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs.
Therefore IP is a comprehensive concept that includes activities with no cultural content like, for example, manufacture of pharmaceutical products. Not everything that is protected is cultural, and every cultural good or service is not necessarily protected.
3/ the ‘method of production’, probably the most effective criterion for cultural industrial businesses. It rests on the features of cultural economics: cost structure, reproducibility, the nobody knows principle (nobody knows whether the product created will find a public or not), economies of scale and prototype properties.
4/ the ‘use value’ is a fourth criteria to delineate cultural activities and the one favoured here. Here the argument put forward is along the following lines: in principle, goods and services deliver two broad types of functions or values for the user. One is the technical value, for example, clothes as shelter from the sun. The other is the intrinsic or symbolic value which makes appeal to the user because it defines the person who consumes the product or the service. The intrinsic or symbolic values can also be called cultural values which are produced by cultural activities. Thus cultural activities are the ones which focus in producing what we can call cultural values.
As a matter of fact, cultural values relate to the attitudes, traditions and other habits distinguishing one person from another and one social group from another one. Groups can be identified with respect to region, religion, ethnicity, political approaches or, for instance, youth culture. A group may differ in terms of signs, symbols, texts, languages, objects and references to different types of traditions. The functions i.e the intrinsic value of these expressions is to establish the identity and affiliation of groups.
For culture, this description interconnects the intrinsic values like aesthetics, artistic expressions and intellectuality. Irrespectively to which of these descriptions one adheres to, both are related to the following three characteristics:
1.They are related to the notion of cultural expressions;
2. They are rooted in creation and communication through symbols;
3. They are related to some aspect of intellectual property rights (copyright, industrial design rights).
The ESSnet Culture TF1 has not seen as its task to develop the discussion of the exact or best definition of culture but only to accept intuitively this notion of cultural values as intrinsic values in order to propose interpretive keys to develop its system for harmonized cultural statistics.
Bearing in mind the former outline, TF1 specific tasks split the work into 4 stages, called Step 1 to Step 4, as outlined below. This method aimed, above all, at being pragmatic, making use of available European statistical tools, harmonised surveys and recommendations and linking work with prior European developments and international concepts. The idea is to define the cultural framework, starting from a list of theoretical activities, with reference to the statistical field (classifications such as NACE, CPA, ISCO, HBS…) and to the existing sources.
Step 1. inventory and study of the general framework
>start with what was already done, what is established in the EU: the 2000 LEG framework and the 2008 expert report on sources;