城市和地区内部和之间的文化治理:来自英国公共资助艺术部门的证据

IF 2.8 2区 经济学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
D. O’Brien, Griffith Rees, M. Taylor
{"title":"城市和地区内部和之间的文化治理:来自英国公共资助艺术部门的证据","authors":"D. O’Brien, Griffith Rees, M. Taylor","doi":"10.1177/09697764221113750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are significant inequalities in the publicly funded arts sector in England, including significant spatial inequalities. If anything, the critique of spatial inequalities in this ecology do not go far enough. This article uses a unique dataset of the boards of directors of Arts Council England’s national portfolio, derived from Companies House. While a majority of national portfolio organisations do not share board members with any other organisation, the analysis demonstrates that London-based organisations are significantly more likely to share board members with other companies than organisations outside London – and that, where an organisation outside of London does share a board member with a company in another region, it is more likely to be with a company in London than all other regions put together. It further demonstrates that this effect is most pronounced where these organisations are part of the same artform. Crucially, the organisations connected to London have more than double the portfolio income of other organisations, whether they share board members or not. This illustration of the concentration of power in London in the publicly funded arts sector, over and above the distribution of organisations in general, demonstrates the conceptual value of a cultural economy that emerges from interconnections within a local or national ecosystem. At the same time, the analysis and findings push the cultural ecology literature to centre inequality as a core issue as the concept is developed. Even the local cultural ecosystem is not exempt from the impact of the nation’s uneven (cultural) geography.","PeriodicalId":47746,"journal":{"name":"European Urban and Regional Studies","volume":"30 1","pages":"186 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural governance within and across cities and regions: Evidence from the English publicly funded arts sector\",\"authors\":\"D. O’Brien, Griffith Rees, M. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09697764221113750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are significant inequalities in the publicly funded arts sector in England, including significant spatial inequalities. If anything, the critique of spatial inequalities in this ecology do not go far enough. This article uses a unique dataset of the boards of directors of Arts Council England’s national portfolio, derived from Companies House. While a majority of national portfolio organisations do not share board members with any other organisation, the analysis demonstrates that London-based organisations are significantly more likely to share board members with other companies than organisations outside London – and that, where an organisation outside of London does share a board member with a company in another region, it is more likely to be with a company in London than all other regions put together. It further demonstrates that this effect is most pronounced where these organisations are part of the same artform. Crucially, the organisations connected to London have more than double the portfolio income of other organisations, whether they share board members or not. This illustration of the concentration of power in London in the publicly funded arts sector, over and above the distribution of organisations in general, demonstrates the conceptual value of a cultural economy that emerges from interconnections within a local or national ecosystem. At the same time, the analysis and findings push the cultural ecology literature to centre inequality as a core issue as the concept is developed. Even the local cultural ecosystem is not exempt from the impact of the nation’s uneven (cultural) geography.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Urban and Regional Studies\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"186 - 204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Urban and Regional Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764221113750\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Urban and Regional Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764221113750","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国公共资助的艺术部门存在着严重的不平等,包括严重的空间不平等。如果有什么不同的话,对这种生态学中的空间不平等的批判还不够深入。本文使用了一个独特的数据集,该数据集来自英国艺术委员会的国家投资组合,来源于公司之家。虽然大多数国家投资组合组织不与任何其他组织共享董事会成员,但分析表明,与伦敦以外的组织相比,总部位于伦敦的组织与其他公司共享董事会会员的可能性要大得多,它更有可能与伦敦的一家公司合作,而不是与所有其他地区的公司合作。它进一步表明,当这些组织是同一艺术形式的一部分时,这种影响最为明显。至关重要的是,与伦敦有关的组织的投资组合收入是其他组织的两倍多,无论它们是否共享董事会成员。这一例证表明,伦敦的权力集中在公共资助的艺术部门,而不是一般组织的分布,这表明了文化经济的概念价值,这种价值源于地方或国家生态系统内的相互联系。同时,随着概念的发展,这些分析和发现将文化生态文学作为一个核心问题推向了中心。即使是当地的文化生态系统也不能免受国家不均衡(文化)地理的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cultural governance within and across cities and regions: Evidence from the English publicly funded arts sector
There are significant inequalities in the publicly funded arts sector in England, including significant spatial inequalities. If anything, the critique of spatial inequalities in this ecology do not go far enough. This article uses a unique dataset of the boards of directors of Arts Council England’s national portfolio, derived from Companies House. While a majority of national portfolio organisations do not share board members with any other organisation, the analysis demonstrates that London-based organisations are significantly more likely to share board members with other companies than organisations outside London – and that, where an organisation outside of London does share a board member with a company in another region, it is more likely to be with a company in London than all other regions put together. It further demonstrates that this effect is most pronounced where these organisations are part of the same artform. Crucially, the organisations connected to London have more than double the portfolio income of other organisations, whether they share board members or not. This illustration of the concentration of power in London in the publicly funded arts sector, over and above the distribution of organisations in general, demonstrates the conceptual value of a cultural economy that emerges from interconnections within a local or national ecosystem. At the same time, the analysis and findings push the cultural ecology literature to centre inequality as a core issue as the concept is developed. Even the local cultural ecosystem is not exempt from the impact of the nation’s uneven (cultural) geography.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: European Urban and Regional Studies is a highly ranked, peer reviewed international journal. It provides an original contribution to academic and policy debate related to processes of urban and regional development in Europe. It offers a truly European coverage from the Atlantic to the Urals,and from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean. Its aims are to explore the ways in which space makes a difference to the social, economic, political and cultural map of Europe; highlight the connections between theoretical analysis and policy development; and place changes in global context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信