Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Quite a few of the periodical organisations that had received relatively small amounts of money complained that the support was actually a hindrance, because of the restrictions in S[tavanger] 2008’s sponsorship (Bergsgard & Vassenden, 2011: 314). In the case of Liverpool 2008, both individual practitioners and organisations reported being in receipt of additional programme and project funding in the lead-up to, and including, 2008, although this was not a universal experience. Some issues were raised in relation to transparency of funding processes from Liverpool Culture Company to artists and organisations – specifically, what funding would be available to bid for, and how that bidding would work (Impacts 08, 2010c). The ex-post evaluation for the 2007 and 2008 ECoCs reflects some similar ‘benefits’ for the cultural sectors in those years to those identified in the case of Cork 2005, noting that: …a significant number of local cultural operators have been supported in each [ECoC]. As well as enjoying greater profile and contacts, one of the most important benefits reported across all four ECOC is the greater professionalism and operational capacity of such operators. In many cases, the mere fact of working more closely with cultural institutions and authorities has enabled greater support to be provided than would otherwise have been the case (ECORYS, 2009a: vi). It also suggests that, more generally across the ECoCs, organisations anticipated undertaking a “higher level of activity than before the title year” in the future (ECORYS, 2009a). There is no discussion, however, of what would be required to support activity at that “higher level” in the future. These broad observations, concerning a sample of four different cities from two years, suggest that, on the whole, impacts in terms of capacitybuilding may be felt in different sizes and types of cities and ECoCs – and that, overall, they are not unique to a particular type of city.44 Some examples suggest benefits for specific groups within the sector: in respect of Luxembourg GR 2007, the formal process of funding some “smaller, new or informal” organisations and individuals was felt to have supported them in becoming more “professional” (ECORYS, 2009a: 37). Sibiu 2007 reports similar benefits (ECORYS, 2009a), as does Linz (ECORYS, 2010a: v). For organisations involved in Pécs 2010, capacity-building through the undertaking of “more and bigger projects than in previous years” was felt to have been beneficial for the sector (ECORYS, 2011c: v), as was the sense that these organisations were “more engaged than previously in the civic life of the city” (ibid.: vi); this extends the notion of benefit beyond the cultural sector to a wider conception of the role of culture in the city. In some cases, the particular contextual circumstances of a city and its cultural sector appear especially salient in the apparent development of the capacity of this sector. The ex-post evaluation for Tallinn 2011, for example, notes that the reporting of enhanced capacity by ‘cultural operators’ in the city is: all the more significant given that Estonia (a former Soviet republic) does not have a long tradition of a diverse, independent and multi-disciplinary cultural sector or many longestablished private and commercial operators in the cultural and creative industries (ECORYS, 2012a: 29).45
44
45
What is perhaps to be supposed is that such benefits might be relative to the state and constitutent parts of the cultural system in any given city, in terms of what ‘raising the bar’ might mean for different institutions and organisations. It is perhaps worth noting that this analysis implies a preferred model for a cultural sector (with multiple independent providers). Relatively speaking, there is little research or commentary on ECoCs which reflects on the different arrangements of local cultural sectors between different ECoCs.
118