This document presents a comparison of cultural policy and funding in Canada, the US, and Japan. It discusses how each country approaches arts funding, whether through public or private means. Key differences are highlighted such as Canada prioritizing national pride and social cohesion, while the US emphasizes public goods and diplomacy. The document also examines cultural complexes in each country, like Harbourfront Centre in Canada, Lincoln Center in the US, and Roppongi Art District in Japan. It concludes by suggesting organizations like Harbourfront Centre could learn from US models to increase private funding while maintaining their missions.

1. PUBLIC POLICY
PRESENTATION
CULTURAL POLICY AND CULTURAL COMPLEXES
HIROYASU SUDO MARCH 2012

2. TODAY’S NEWS

3. AGENDA
• Issue: Arts Funding
• Countries: Canada, the US, Japan
• Situations in each country
• Cultural complex in each country
• Suggestion

4. ISSUE: ARTS FUNDING
• Arts Funding – Public or Private
• Why? – Public Goods, Philanthropy, Diplomacy…
• Trend – Decreasing (i.e. Global Competition, The Crisis)
• ‘Creative Class’ theory -- Instrumentalism

5. CANADA
• Objective: National Pride/ Social Cohesion/ Diversity
• History: Formed after WWII, American Influence
• Type: Public Funding is larger
• Culture: Individualistic, slightly socialistic
• Trend: Decreasing, yet the scope is broadening

6. THE UNITED STATES
• Objective: Public Goods, Diplomacy
• History: In line with active philanthropy (Carnegie)
• Type: Private Funding is substantially larger
• Culture: Individualistic, Capitalistic (Democratic)
• Trend: Recovering from the Crisis

7. JAPAN
• Objective: Public Goods, Preservation, Economic Growth
• History: Westernization = Modernization, WWII
• Type: Public Funding is marginal (fear of public intervention)
• Culture: Collectivist, Capitalistic
• Trend: Recovering from the Crisis, Collaboration with Private

8. COMPARISON
Canada USA Japan
National Pride/Social Cohesion Public goods Preservation
Objective
Economic Development Diplomacy Economic Development
Policy Change PEF ACF PDF
Public/Private 27:23 13:43 6:12.2
ratio 117% 30% 49%
Culture Individualist - Socialistic Individualist - Capitalistic Collectivist - Capitalistic
• Punctuation Equilibrium: External Influence
• Advocacy Coalition: Linear
• Path Dependency: Disconnected Evolution
• Policy tools: Direct, Indirect, Hybrid

9. CULTURE COMPLEX
• Cultural Hub
• Encourage arts/culture
• Provide facilities (Theatre, Gallery, etc.)

10. HARBOURFRONT
CENTRE
• Non-profit (established as a
crown company)
• Artistic Innovation, Cultural
Engagement
• 4 Theatres, 2 Galleries
• Decreasing Public Funding
• Increasing Private Funding

11. LINCOLN CENTER
• Non-profit (most donation from Rockefeller)
• Initiated by The Mayor's Slum Clearance Committee
• Urban Renewal
• Opera house, Concert Halls, Music School
• Marginal Public Funding

12. ROPPONGI ART
DISTRICT
• Mix of Non-profit and For-profit
• Economic Development
• 3 Museums (2 Private Museums and 1 National Arts Center)
• Form the Arts Triangle
• Resulted in commercial success

13. CONCLUSION
• Harbourfront Centre needs to be more commercial
• But cannot compromise its mission
• Could learn from the US organizations about private funds
• Programming should be aimed at ‘creative class’
• The Japan case tells that the government can support the
initiative for economic growth
<Takeaways>
• Country comparison let us see a bigger picture
• This leads to deeper understanding of the issue
• Results in a better suggestion