Use of Cultural Event for the Economic and Social Purposes: the European Capitals of Culture and City Re-branding

1. Use of Cultural Event for the Economic and Social Purposes: the European Capitals of
Culture and City Re-branding
Introduction
Although culture is instrumentalised for broader purposes by various levels of governments, the
most visible case of the relationship is the pan-European cultural pragramme European Capitals of
Culture (ECoC) (Gold and Gold, 2005). The programme has been utilised for city re-branding with
economic and social objectives since Glasgow 1990, then followed by Liverpool 2008 (Griffiths,
2006). This two cases are thoroughly documented in the city-commissioned repots (Myerscough,
1991; Garcia, et al, 2010), and continuously contested by scholars (such as Jones and Wilks-Heeg,
2004; Griffiths, 2006; Boland 2010). Hence, this essay examines the use of the cultural event for the
economic and social purposes by cities drawing on the ECoC Glasgow 1990 and Liverpool 2008.
As a structure of the essay, firstly, culture and its role in the society are reviewed, and then the
relationship among culture, government and event industry is recapitulated. Subsequently, the two
cases are examined and evaluated, finally the essay is concluded with insights from the evaluation.
Culture and the Society
Holden (2004) defines culture as the socially shared assets and experiences among particular
cohorts. Echoing this view, Ali-Knight and Robertson (2004) explain that culture is a process as
well as outcome that stems from constant activities, which are from the high culture, such as art,
opera, orchestra and theatre, to the popular culture, such as film, television, popular music and
sports. Holms (2004) also states that these activities accumulate cultural assets, which consequently
become the cultural capital. In this respect, Bourdieu (2011) claims that cultural capital is as
indispensable as economic and social capitals in the society.
In terms of the value of the culture, Holden (2013) conceptualises intrinsic, instrumental and
institutional values. Intrinsic value stems the belief that culture has its own value spontaneously as
excellence of humanity, authenticity and aesthetic. Instrumental velue is the concept that culture
contributes to other institutional objectives. Institutional value is that cultural organisations can
pursue public benefit through their own objectives. These values justify the reason why culture is
underpinned in the society. Specifically, when it comes to the economic aspect, Holden (2004)
explains that the economic value embraces wide range of ideas. Commercial value is measurable by
financial return in the market whilst some forms are not monetised, free admission into cultural
venues, for example. Also, non-use value is included since people can benefit from the existence of
cultural products and places, and might consider them as potential option for future use. Meanwhile,
regarding the social aspect, as Bourdieu (2011) discusses the social capital is the value of
relationship, the social value of culture is associated to group, community and society at large.
Holden (2004) claims that cultural objects and places bring connection between people, which
consequently generates unity and identity. In this respect, Garcia (2004) states that social inclusion,
social cohesion, community participation, community diversity, self-confidence, identity, and local
citizenship are the key arguments.
Government, Culture and Event Industry
The governments pursue public policy to address general concerns as well as specific issues with
laws, regulations and decisions, and one of their approaches is the market intervention (Getz, 2007).
This is rationalise by several reasons as follows. First of all, governments aim public good, which is
the benefit for the public such as prosperity, health and well-being. Subsequently, they also pursue
social equity, which is the fairness of accessibility to public benefits. Also, the market failure is
believed, which is the insufficient ability of the free market to fulfill every needs. Finally, the
27 January 2015 | (c)Yusskei, http://yusskei.net

2. economic efficiency concept supports governments generate profit when their investment more
effectively works than the market does (Getz, 2007). Thus, it would be rationale that the
government intervention in the culture and event industries is not exception. Holden (2013)
acknowledges that although government has supported culture for culture’s own sake, it is also keen
on economic and social outcomes through the culture today. Likewise, Ali-Knight and Robertson
(2004) state cultural events have been exploited by nations and cities for economic development
since the 1980s owing to the emergence of the survice-led industry. Subsequently, since the late
1990s, cultural event-led tourism has been considerably popularised among them in favour of place
marketing (Ali-Knight and Robertson, 2004). Boland (2010) agreed that major cultural events have
been seen as the opportunities to accelerate urban regeneration, city branding and economic
development.
In this respect, Getz (2007) describes major political objectives in the event industry. In
terms of the economic policy, the one objective is event tourism, which expects that visitor
attraction boosts tourism-related economy and destination image. Another objective is leveraging
events for general economy growth, which is the idea that events contribute city’s holistic economy
such as infrastructural development, employment and local business. In addition, efficient use of
existing facilities is also included. Concerning the social policy, the one objective is social
integration, which is to include various groups into a community, and to unite it with identity.
Another objective is to address social issues such as poverty, unemployment, education and crime.
Finally, enhancing public health and well-being is also adopted.
In the relationship among culture, government and event industry as above, Gold and Gold
(2005) state that the most visible case in this context is the ECoC, which is the most profiled
cultural programme in Europe officially supported by European Union. The ECoC was established
in 1985, and has been held in dirrerent European cities each year, and throughout the year,
experiencing renaming from the European Cities of Culture in 1999 (Gold and Gold, 2005).
Initially, it was solely for cultural celebration purpose, the ECoC has been expanded in favour of the
economic and social developments of the host cities (Richards, 1996). In this respect, Glasgow is
the first city that adopted culture use for destination re-branding, and its approach has been adopted
by subsequent host sities that include Antwerp, Rotterdam, Lille and Liverpool (Griffiths, 2006).
The ECoC Glasgow 1990
The Glasgow 1990 is a distinguished nomination in the ECoC history since Glasgow is the first city
that held the programme notwithstanding relatively weak connection with the art and culture, and
that provided wide range of cultural activities (Gold and Gold, 2005). This is because Glasgow city
council considered the programme as part of its continual regeneration plan (Gold and Gold, 2005).
Having experienced the severe deindustrialisation and social deterioration, namely violence,
inadequate housing and unemployment, during the 1970s, Glasgow has been regenerated since the
1980s through the investment to the culture and event sectors (Gold and Gold, 2005). Thus, main
objectives of the programme were to boost cultural industry, and to attract wider audiences in the
city as a city re-branding as well as destination marketing (Gold and Gold, 2005).
Defining culture as everything that shapes Glasgow, such as history, design, engineering,
music, education, religion and sport, the Glasgow 1990 provided various activities (Gold and Gold,
2005). Myerscough (1991) lists the major achievements in the city-commissioned repot as follows.
Overall, the programmed provided 4,390 performances and exhibitions, and attracted over 6.5
million attendances in 1990, which is nearly 40% increase compared to the previous year.
Regarding the economic aspect, the achievements in 1990 include, lucrative finance, estimated
£11.6 to 15.5 million net return to the city’s economy, tourism expansion, nearly 84% increase in
non-residents tourists admission to the cultural attractions compared to 1986, employment increase,
27 January 2015 | (c)Yusskei, http://yusskei.net

3. 7.8% growth in the city’s cultural industry compared to 1986. In addition, as the long-term impacts,
investment to the key cultural facilities, namely McLellan Galleries and The Glasgow Royal
Concert Hall, and improvement of the city image among London and South Eastern England
residents are described. When it comes to the social aspect, the report stresses the high level of local
residents reach, as 74% local residents participated in some activities, which is over 30% increase
compared to 1986. Also, nearly 1,400 community events were held, which attracted over 1.4 million
local residents.
However, some criticisms are emerged. In the economic view point, long-term tourism
impact is questioned, as Griffiths (2006) points out that overnight stays in the city dropped by 20%
in 1991, which became even lower than 1989, and the tourists admissions to the cultural attractions
declined for 5 years after the Glasgow 1990. In the social point of view, social inclusion is
contested, as Gold and Gold (2005) acknowledge that a local protest group Worker’s City asserted
that the programme prioritises internationally praised artworks for the middle-class and tourists in
spite of the long history and contribution of the working-class. In this respect, the report evidences
as the programme attendance rate among the residents who live is the city’s central district was 79%
whilst the counterpart among outer city residents was 69%. Also, the rate among the upper and
upper-middle classes was 86% whilst the counterpart among the lower and lower-middle classes
was 67% (Myerscough, 1991).
The ECoC Liverpool 2008
Likewise Glasgow, it is commonly recognised that the Liverpool 2008 is part of longitudinal
regeneration scheme of the city (Griffiths, 2006). Since the 1970s, the city had been economically
and socially deprived owing to deindustrialisation and the subsequent social issues, namely
unemployment, poverty and crime (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004). Nevertheless, since the late
1990s, the city has been regenerated by the renewed local government and its strategic policy,
which articulates economic and social recovery leveraging from refurbishment of the city centre
(Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004). Thus, objectives of the programme were stimulation for local
economy, improvement of city reputation and social inclusion, employing wide definition of culture
from high culture to popular culture (Griffiths, 2006).
As a city-commissioned report, Garcia, et al (2010) highlights the major accomplishments as
follows. Overall, the Liverpool 2008 provided over 7,000 cultural activities, and attracted over 9.8
million attendances. In the economic view point, in 2008, tourism expansion, 34% increase in
visitor numbers in the city compared to the previous year, employment increase, 8% rise in the
number of creative companies in the city compared to 2004, and industry income increase, 26% rise
among the eight key art organisations in the city compared to the previous year, are reported. In
addition, as the long-term impact, image improvement of the city among UK population is
mentioned. In the social view point, high level of local residents participation, which are 3.3 million
residents involvement, and 9% and 10% growth in museums and galleries visitor numbers
respectively from 2005 to 2008.
However, several criticisms are raised particularly in the social dimension. Jones and Wilks-
Heeg (2004) claim that the programme overlooked the social diversity of the city, which derives
from the historical association with Chinese and African immigrants, grassroots artists, musicians,
poets and actores, and football teams. Jones and Wilks-Heeg (2004) also state that a reconstruction
of the city centre incurred deterioration of local community, as the city council proposed the
privatisation of the 35 streets of the city centre, where security staffs control the access, non-license
street performers are excluded, and skate board and flyers are completely prohibited, mentioning
some local residents protest against gentrification. Furthermore, Jones and Wilks-Heeg (2004) and
Boland (2010) describe the demolishment of the community retail centre Quiggins is the most
27 January 2015 | (c)Yusskei, http://yusskei.net

4. visible case. Although Quiggins had housed the 50 independent shops mostly run by self-employed
local entrepreneurs, it was replaced by a shopping complex owing to the council’s city centre
development. In addition, Boland (2010) reveal social division between the city centre and
peripheral the city as follows. Firstly, as far as throughout the field trip to the outer Liverpool in
2008 and 2009, there were neither any promotional signs nor conversations among residents
regarding the programme. Secondly, an interview to a Toxteth resident highlights the exclusiveness
of the programme, as she asserted public money should have spent to address poverty and crime
rather than the programme.
Evaluation
It would be obvious that Glasgow and Liverpool cities hosted the ECoC for city re-branding. This
approach would represent the instrumental value of culture, as governments intervened market with
economic and social policy objectives, namely integrating economic and social outcomes into wider
government’s city regeneration scheme based on public good ideology. In the economic aspect, the
ECoC would generate positive short-term impacts on tourism, net revenue, industry employment
and external reputation. However, its long-term impacts would be questionable, as Griffiths (2006)
shows visitors number decline in Glasgow after the ECoC. Also, in terms of city image, Griffiths
(2006) also claims that reputation of the city is not transformed radically as London, Paris and
Amsterdam are the most acclaimed cultural cities even today.
When it comes to the social aspect, firstly, social objectives would be insufficient. Griffiths
(2006) claims that the most common interest of the cities is economic benefit, and in fact, Garcia
(2009) points out that social achievements are less described than the economic counterpart in the
assessment report of the Glasgow 1990. Moreover, it would be possible that economic boosterism
enhances social exclusion. The cases would clearly describes that the prioritisation of middle-class,
tourists, city centre over the low-class, local residents and the peripheral city. Jones and Wilks-Heeg
(2004) claim that political-economy led re-branding has incurred social inequality. For instance, 3
out of 5 the most deprived districts in Scotland are in Glasgow city in 2012 (Scottish Government,
2012). Likewise, Liverpool ranks the 4th worst in the deprivation index among 326 England
districts in 2010 (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011).
Conclusion
The ECoC has been utilised for city re-branding that benefit from economic and social
accomplishments. The Glasgow 1990 is the first case that the ECoC programme used for the city’s
overall regeneration scheme, followed by Liverpool 2008. From the two cases, it could be drawn
that economically, the ECoC is beneficial for the cities in short-term, notwithstanding the long-term
effects is questionable. Also, socially, in addition to less prioritisation of social objectives, it would
be revealed that political-economic boosterism incurs social exclusion. Thus, exploitation of the
ECoC is not be fully achieved yet, which would indicate the need to further consideration regarding
long-term economic outcome as well as the social impact, namely social inclusion.
References
Ali-Knight, J., Robertson, M. (2004). Introduction to Arts, culture and leisure. In Yeoman, I.,
Robertson, M., Ali-Knight, J., Drummond, S., McMahon-Beattie, U. (eds). Festival and Events
Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann, pp. 3-13.
27 January 2015 | (c)Yusskei, http://yusskei.net

5. Boland, P. (2010). ‘Capital of Culture - You Must Be Having a Laugh!’ Challenging the Official
Rhetoric of Liverpool as the 2008 European Cultural Capital. Social & Cultural Geography, 11(7),
pp. 627-645.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). “The Capital of Culture” (1986). In Szeman, I., Kaposy, T. (eds). Cultural
Theory: An Anthology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 81-93.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010,
Local Authority District Rank of Average Rank. Available at: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/index-of-
multiple-deprivation-2010-local-authority-district-rank-of-average-rank (Accessed: 25 January
2015)
Garcia, B. (2009). Learning from Glasgow 1990: Interrogating the European Culture Capital Title
as Impulse for Cultural and Creative Development. European Year of Creativity and Innovation
2009 Creative Cities Seminars, 23 September, Amsterdam. Available at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/
impacts08/seminars-and-events/invitedseminarpresentations.htm (Accessed: 23 January 2015)
Garcia, B., Melville, R., Cox, T. (2010). Creating an Impact: Liverpool's Experience as European
Capital of Culture. Impact 08. Available at: http://www.liverpool.ac.uk/impacts08/ (Accessed: 23
January 2015)
Getz, D. (2007). Events Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gold, J. R., Gold, M. M. (2005). Cities of Culture: Staging International Festivals and the Urban
Agenda, 1851-2000. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Griffiths, R. (2006). City/Culture Discourses: Evidence from the Competition to Select the
European Capital of Culture 2008. European Planning Studies, 14(4), pp. 415-430.
Holden, J. (2004). Capturing Cultural Value: How Culture Has Become a Tool of Government
Policy. London: Demos.
Holden, J. (2013). Valuing Culture. In Scott, R., Goodhart, D. (eds). Twenty Years of Ideas. London:
Demos.
Jones, P., Wilks-Heeg, S. (2004). Capitalising Culture: Liverpool 2008. Local Economy, 19(4), pp.
341-360.
Myerscough, J. (1991). Monitoring Glasgow 1990. Glasgow City Council. Available at: http://
www.understandingglasgow.com/resources/505_monitoring_glasgow_1990 (Accessed: 20 January
2015)
Richards, G. (1996). The Scope and Significance of Cultural Tourism. In Richards, G. (ed).
Cultural Tourism in Europe. Oxon: CAB International, pp. 19-45.
Scottish Government (2012). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012. Edinburgh: Scottish
Government. Available at: http://simd.scotland.gov.uk/publication-2012/ (Accessed: 26 January
2015)
27 January 2015 | (c)Yusskei, http://yusskei.net