Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy

Home , Cultural diplomacy, Cultural exception

GlobalCVR 1/2/02 1:04 PM Page 2

GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURAL DIPLOMACY

CENTER FOR ARTS AND CULT U R E GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURAL DIPLOMACY

Harvey B. Feigenbaum The George Washington University

CENTER FOR ARTS AND CULTURE Art, Culture & the National Agenda Issue Paper 2 3

ART, CULTURE AND THE NATIONAL AGENDA

The Center for Arts and Culture is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to examining critical issues in cultural policy. The Center initiated, in the Spring of 2000, a project called Art, Culture and the National Agenda. With generous support from a number of foundations, the Center solicited back- g round papers on arts and cultural issues fro m dozens of scholars and practitioners over an 18-month period. The aim of Art, Culture and the National Agenda is to explore a roster of cultural issues that affect the nation’s well-being -- issues that should be on the horizon of policymakers, public and private, and at national, state and local levels.

This issue paper, Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy, is the fourth in the Art, Culture and the National Agenda series. Written by Dr. Harvey Feigenbaum from George Washington University, Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy looks at trade, cultural diplomacy, and foreign policy implications of globalization. This issue paper, like others in the series, reflects the opinions and research of its author, who was informed by commissioned background papers and the assis- Cover photo: City lights around the world from the tance of the Center’s Research Advisory Council. The Goddard Space Flight Center satellite image collection. paper does not necessarily represent the views of all To see more go to: www.gsfc.nasa.gov/ those associated with the Center. 4 5 The Art, Culture and the National Agenda project was supported by the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Kevin Mulcahy the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Thomas S. Professor of Political Science Kenan Institute for the Arts, the Ford Foundation, the Louisiana State University Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Shalini Venturelli Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. We are Professor of International Communications grateful for the time and resources provided by each American University of these foundations. Additional information about the Center and the Art, We would like to thank, in particular, Harvey Culture and the National Agenda project can be found Feigenbaum for his hard work in producing this issue on the Center’s web site at www.culturalpolicy.org. paper. We also thank Research Advisory Council member William Glade, of the University of Texas, for Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our his advice and counsel in the paper’s development. national conversation has assumed a new tenor. Finally, we thank the following individuals for their Americans now better understand how culture affects the way we are viewed by some people in other parts contribution in providing necessary backgro u n d of the world. As we struggle to recover from the information for Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy: attacks, we must ask how we can nourish a truer pic- t u re of American values, American culture, and Richard T. Arndt American democracy. The Center for Arts and Past President Culture hopes that this issue paper will contribute to Fulbright Association a deeper understanding of culture’s role in global Retired from United States Information Agency interactions, and that its proposals will spur the federal government to devote additional resources and Harvey Feigenbaum attention to the critical contributions of culture in the Professor of Political Science and International Affairs conduct of foreign affairs. Associate Dean of the Elliott School The George Washington University Gigi Bradford Executive Director William Gilcher Director of Media Projects US/Canada November 2001 The Goethe-Institut, Washington DC

William Glade Professor of Economics University of Texas, Austin 6 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Culture can be the glue that binds civil societies; it can provide for the common assumptions which under- gird markets, laws and regulations. Conversely, cultural divisions can tear a society apart, and make its markets, laws and regulations unworkable, at least in part. Thus, the configuration and production of culture is a legitimate concern of public policy, for it com- prises both public and private goods. Additionally, understanding the culture of other peoples and nations is essential to international cooperation and successful commerce in today’s increasingly global markets.

Cultural products and services are incre a s i n g l y important to American competitiveness, as national and global economies are more and more based on information and the means of its exchange. This issue paper focuses on the significance of globalization and its policy implications for education, the regulation of intellectual property and monopolies, and the financing of new creative enterprises.

The nation states of the world have moved from the bi-polar system of the Cold War to a global system -- integrating markets, nation states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before. Globalization has stimulated world-wide growth, and for some, incomes are rising at unprecedented rates. But there is a backlash from those who have been, or think they have been, left behind. For some people, local, regional, or national cultures seem to be eroding under the pressure of global markets. 8 Executive Summary Executive Summary 9

The United States tends to dominate international satellites and digital compression tend to moder- trade in cultural goods and services. Even though a ate or even blunt the impact of cultural protec- number of the world’s major cultural producers and tionism. Moreover, maintaining diverse sources of distributors are not owned by Americans, the pre- cultural products and services, on a global as well dominance of U.S. content results in tension between as national level, provides value added for U.S. foreign economic and trade objectives and the American consumers and producers while allow- desire of other countries to preserve their cultural ing other countries to produce their distinctive identities and foster indigenous cultural industries. cultures as a valued public good. Historically, U.S. government policies have tended to favor free trade in cultural products and services. America’s long term international competitive- Other nations, however, have restricted such trade ness in the “Knowledge Economy” will depend because they are concerned by the dominance of U.S. on improved education, modernized regulation of cultural goods and services, particularly in the audio- intellectual property and knowledge monopolies, visual sector. and micro-financing of small, creative enterprises. These efforts will need to concentrate, in part, on Outside of commercial trade in cultural goods and the cultural ingredients intrinsic to the services, the U.S. government has a long-term com- Knowledge Economy. mitment to promoting mutual understanding by fos- tering international cultural relations. U.S. govern- The U.S. may be able to live with some cultural ment programs to this end have taken the form of exceptions through existing flexibilities in the exchanges, on the one hand, and public diplomacy, on General Agreement on Trade Services (GATS), but the other. Exchanges allow people from different there is also no need to adopt a pose of rigid oppo- countries and cultures to get to know and understand sition to the forms of exception advocated by the each other. Public diplomacy, in the service of which Europeans and Canadians. Generally speaking, cultural diplomacy has sometimes been enlisted, gets the US should show more sympathy with the cul- America’s word out – in a hopefully persuasive way tural dilemmas that other countries experience in to hopefully receptive publics in other nations. the face of American popular culture.

State Department programs in support of educa- This paper suggests: tional and cultural affairs, on the one hand, and public diplomacy, on the other, must be kept care- America’s trade advantages in cultural products fully distinct, even though they are fundamental- and services can be maintained even if the U.S. is ly compatible. Furthermore, both cultural less adamant about opposing cultural exceptions exchanges and public diplomacy need the to free trade. The technologies of direct broadcast resources and administrative muscle to carry out 10 Executive Summary 11

their particular mandates. Cultural offices abroad need to be tailored to fit each country’s specific situation and be staffed with Americans of high achievement. Distinguished university professors, arts and educational administrators, journal- GLOBALIZATION AND ists, trade union officials, and artists should be CULTURAL DIPLOMACY recruited for temporary assignments. U.S. government programs should facilitate exchanges for their long-term intellectual, artistic, and educational value, rather than tie them to often transient policy objectives. THE INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE

The end of World War II set the stage for dramatic changes in the world – politically, economically, and culturally. Yet, it would take almost half a century for these changes to play out. In the West, political, economic, and cultural nationalism became discredited. On the other hand, in the developing world – whether newly emerging states from ex-colonies or long independent countries – nationalism in all its forms spread and intensified. In these developing countries, governments resorted to a multitude of controls, regulations, and promotional policies that supported state- managed industrialization and restricted international trade and investment.

In addition, a large portion of the world parted com- pany with the open societies of the West and their pre- f e r red trade and investment policies. Centrally planned economies were installed in the Soviet sphere, on the Chinese mainland, and elsewhere. Political pluralism was systematically eliminated in these countries. And, cultural imports were con- trolled and held to a minimum, while cultural exports were harnessed to expansionist political aims. 12 13 Notwithstanding these factors, the United States was changes dramatically facilitating transport and com- able to use its post-war industrial preeminence and munications, companies could locate each stage of influence to construct, with the support of the production in areas where factor costs were cheapest, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, a allowing them to optimize sales of finished goods in world economy with generally diminishing trade and the most lucrative markets. This expansion of trade, investment barriers and open markets. Although the together with the geographical integration of produc- process of trade liberalization launched by the indus- tion, came to be a significant piece of what came to be trially advanced countries was long, often laborious, known as “globalization.” and fraught with contradictions, it nonetheless continued through the eight consecutive rounds of nego- As Margaret Wyszomirski points out, globalization is tiations that composed the General Agreement on a “process in the works.” Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and that culminated in the establishment of the World Trade Org a n i z a t i o n Economically, globalization is seen—various- (WTO). Exchange of goods (and increasingly services) ly—as a process by which business expands skyrocketed, creating previously unknown levels of into markets around the world; as the increas- wealth and prosperity for many. ing integration of world markets and the parceling out of different stages of production Alongside the institutional framework provided first to areas with the most obvious competitive by the GATT and then by the WTO, regional arrange- advantage; or the increasing interdependence of business and financial systems. ments, such as those that eventuated in the European Union and the Southern Cone Common Market Te c h n o l o g i c a l l y, the internationalization of (Mercosur) in Latin America, were harbingers of the communications, media, and information development of a global economy. By the 1980s, even delivery and distribution systems both sup- the developing countries were turning to the kind of ports and drives the emerging global econo- market-based policies that the advanced nations had my. Multinational and transnational commu- been espousing. The collapse of communism after nication and media corporations use wireless, 1989 further extended the reach of this system to the fiber optic, and web-based technologies to countries of Central and Eastern Europe. A decade or manage and market their products globally. so earlier, a shift in Chinese economic policy had The Internet and associated activities have gradually opened a large portion of Asia to growing made information access easier and faster participation in world markets. than ever before. And technology keeps evolving at a rapid pace.1 In economic terms, the huge increase in the volume of trade went hand in hand with major changes in the Globalization is clearly about more than commerce. organization of economic production. With barriers to Thomas Friedman notes in The Lexus and the Olive Tree: trade effectively dismantled and technological “Globalization. . .is the overarching international 14 15 system shaping the domestic politics and foreign rela- the United States would appear to cut against the tions of virtually every country…” It “involves the argument that most workers are not better off. And inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and many of the poor in the developing world are much technologies to a degree never witnessed before – in a better off. Still the onset of recession may activate the way that is enabling individuals, corporations and persisting concern that liberalized trade may worsen nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, income distribution in both advanced and developing deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way economies. Even so, so long as world trade is expand- that is also producing a powerful backlash from those ing, there appears to be some reduction of poverty in brutalized or left behind…” We have gone from the developing world. “How big is your missile?” to “How fast is your modem?”2 We have gone from a variety of economic Other critics see globalization as undermining envi- ideologies to a choice between “free market vanilla ronmental and worker protections. Firms in advanced and North Korea.”3 countries with these protections see themselves at a competitive disadvantage in relation to rivals from Many stress the benefits of this new world order – countries with less costly regulations. Some academ- increased efficiency, development, and income, as the ics with no obvious political ox to gore stress that the newly industrialized countries expand their export tendency toward globalized production allows eco- markets and attract inward investment. By and large, nomic actors to escape not only the control of govern- globalization has been received positively by national ments, but also the discipline of markets. As Prakash governments, and in some quarters enthusiastically. and Hart point out: Standards of living are, by and large, higher. In an international economy, cross-national Critics worry, however, about the impact of globaliza- trade and investment flows are regulated by tion on workers and the environment, and public the state, or supra-national institutions estab- protests at meetings of the World Trade Association in lished by states. In contrast, production in a Seattle and Genoa are a measure of their concerns. global economy is organized in cross-border Some argue that the rise of manufacturing in develop- networks or value-chains largely out of the ing economies has occurred at the expense of labor in control of states. Since a significant propor- the developed countries. It is suggested that the loss tion of cross border trade takes place within of low and semiskilled jobs in advanced countries has firms, cro s s - b o rder networks supersede left the more poorly educated in those countries in resource allocation by markets as well.4 p recarious circumstances, without the training to compete for new jobs in the high technology indus- On the other hand, Friedman argues: tries. [T]hanks in large part to increasing globaliza- On the other hand, recent low unemployment rates in tion more than one quarter of humanity is 16 17 now enjoying growth at rates at which their society and economy, including specialists at the living standards will quadruple within a World Bank, argues that the cultural wealth of nations generation. . . . That is unprecedented in eco- is key to the New Economy. She urges that this cul- nomic history. And far from coming at the tural wealth can no longer be regarded as expense of the United States, this worldwide growth has led to the lowest unemployment something fixed, inherited, and mass distrib- rate in America in nearly fifty years.5 uted, but as a measure of the vitality, knowledge, energy, and dynamism in the production of ideas… The challenge for every nation is not how to prescribe an environment of protection for a received body of art and tradition, CULTURE AND THE NEW ECONOMY but how to construct one of creative explosion and innovation in all areas of the arts and sciences.7 The much-heralded “New Economy” is more than just a recently deflated stock-market bubble. The term describes a fundamental shift in economic activity The pursuit of knowledge and the encouragement of from repetitive mass production requiring modest creativity, while related, are not identical. Nor is the skills to the modern work environment where intel- venue for these efforts limited to higher education. lectual and creative judgments are primary. The New The entire educational sector is crucial. As Venturelli Economy is knowledge-based, and knowledge is argues: acquired through institutions that are shaped by culture. Not the least of these is the educational system, Basic literacy skills and imitative learning ade- especially universities. 6 quate for following instructions on the assem- bly line, the workshop, or desktop terminal In the United States, public funding has been nowhere are simply inadequate to the demand of a cre- more effective than in the promotion of higher educa- ative and innovative society. Not basic education and research. Connecting universities with the tion, but advanced intellectual and creative world expands their knowledge base and improves skills that emphasize interdisciplinary and the quality of research. This is often accomplished independent thinking, should be required at through what are, in effect, public-private partner- earlier stages of the educational process and ships. Encouraging international exchange of schol- extend from preschool to grad school. 8 ars and university students under the auspices of the Fulbright program should continue. So should the facilitation through the tax code of the funding of uni- The “Creative Economy” (as Venturelli calls it) has versity exchanges. another set of issues concerning intellectual property laws and practices. “The nation that can accurately Professor Shalini Venturelli of American University, balance ‘fair use’ with property rights in expression along with other thoughtful analysts of contemporary will experience unforeseen and unpredictable spurts 18 19 in the growth of creative ideas, placing it at a compet- THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON CULTURE itive advantage in the Information Society.”9 She also argues that the finan-cing of creative enterprises may If some have viewed the economic impact of global- need to move from mechanisms available only to the ization with a jaundiced eye, the cultural impact of the few (e.g., bank loans, venture capital investments, phenomenon has been even more disquieting to oth- IPOs) to mechanisms available to the many (e.g., ers. Changes in the economy are linked with other micro credits and loans), encouraging a wide variety aspects of a society: e.g., social and political structures, of entre p reneurs from which a few winners will the organization of civil society, pre f e rences and emerge. Finally, Venturelli urges policy frameworks beliefs, patterns of consumption, and the repertory of that discourage knowledge monopolies.10 cultural expression.

On this issue of monopoly, it needs to be noted that Communications technologies are speeding up glob- copyrights and patents are crucial to the encourage- alization and affecting cultural differences. Treasured ment of innovation. At the same time, some thought features of societies and their cultural expressions are needs to be given to our current concepts, laws and undergoing profound changes. This has led a number regulations involving intellectual property. While of countries to express concern that culture is becom- new knowledge can lead to more new knowledge, ing “too global,” in the sense that it is becoming too encouraging the production and distribution of ideas homogenized. may require a greater attention to “fair use,” in con- tradistinction to immediate property benefits. For a European or Canadian the impact of cultural globalization is clear: one need simply flick on one’s In the long run, as innumerable studies of technologi- television, purchase a CD, thumb through the cal advancement reveal, the most substantial elements “Amusements” section of the daily newspaper, or in virtually all advances are those that come from the walk past the local McDonald’s. The problem for common cultural heritage. The net contribution to the many Europeans, Canadians, and Latin Americans, to c reative environment should also be considere d say nothing of millions in the Islamic world, is that where regulators are confronted with mergers of the globalization means Americanization. The uniformity of owners and producers of cultural content. Market- mass cultural offerings around the world has led cul- distorting mergers, coupled with policies that empha- tural critics to see globalization as an international ori- size deregulation, can add to societal cost, and can entation toward the worst aspects of mass consump- dampen the vitality of the emerging economic frame- tion and American cultural products pitched to the works. lowest common denominator.

These critics are not completely wrong. Popular culture (including software), according to some reckon- ings, rivals aviation and agriculture as one of 20 21 America’s biggest exports. In 1996 the U.S. exported the size and aggressiveness of American cul- over $60.2 billion in sales of software and entertain- tural industries such as movies, television, ment products, and total U.S. exports of intellectual and publishing have, in various periods and property have risen over 94 percent since 1991.11 among certain audiences, stimulated a strong These figures do not count illegal copies and other sense of fear about the ‘Americanization’ of forms of piracy. Meanwhile, MacDonald’s restaurants Canada. 13 are opening at a rate of six a day around the world,12 and children who may never have seen a hoop can There have been similar reactions in France, Korea, identify Michael Jordan or the logo of the NBA. Norway, Australia,14 and other countries.

The global impact of U.S. culture is not a recent phe- This fear of dominance by U.S. art and culture is com- nomenon, but one that has become incre a s i n g l y pounded by the American approach to cultural trade. evident – especially over the last 50 years. Alongside Sensitivity to the cultural concerns of our allies is not exports of popular culture, the works of American our strong suit. In the American view, Europeans or writers have gained increasing readership abroad. Canadians should put up no barriers to the entry of And, the impact of abstract expressionism and its “cultural products” any more than they should be aftermath gave New York in particular and the U.S. in allowed to discriminate against other types of traded general the defining role in new vocabularies of paint- goods. Michael Boskin, chief economics advisor to ing and architecture. American musicians, not just in President George H. W. Bush, famously noted that popular music, have gained world-wide recognition there was no difference between “silicon chips and as composers and performing artists. potato chips,” and cultural goods and services should be viewed in the same way.15 This position rankles However, the reaction to the impacts of globalization our trading partners. As Mulcahy notes: in popular culture is irrefutable. A number of countries have decried that influence and instituted meas- In Canada (as in many European nations), cul- ures that favor cultural nationalism and cultural pro- ture is an expression of national identity, and as such is to be promoted and protected as a tectionism. Canada, as Professor Kevin Mulcahy of public responsibility. To the degree to which Louisiana State University notes, has had a longtime culture for Americans is about the profit-mak- fear of becoming a U.S. “vassal state.” For example, in ing entertainment industry and for Canadians Canada, Hollywood feature films (many shot in about the politics of national identity, there Canada) account for 95 percent of screen time. By should be little doubt about the propensity for contrast, through extensive subsidy, France keeps the mutual misunderstanding concerning any U.S. market share to 70 percent. Kevin Mulcahy, of exempt status for cultural industries in free- Louisiana State University writes: trade agreements.16

The result has been a series of efforts by many 22 23 countries, including those who are members of the WTO, to shield their domestic cultures from the influx Thus, the issue is not simply the protection of a coun- of American movies, television shows, books, and try’s culture, although this is perhaps both the most popular music. At the same time these countries have emotional element of these policies and the best argu- intervened in their domestic markets to support local ment politically. Cultural protectionism has an eco- cultural industries. Venturelli says: nomic purpose as well. Some would suggest that economics are the principal purpose. And, beyond the Mechanisms of cultural revival include, for cultural industries themselves, Shalini Ve n t u re l l i example: lottery systems to subsidize film argues that the cultural sector will become the leading production (UK), taxes on cinema receipts edge of most economies in the 21st Century, as the (France), differential postal rates to encourage “Information Economy” becomes the “Cre a t i v e domestic magazine content (Canada), tax Economy.”20 In a world where innovation is crucial, levies on commercial publishers to subsidize where the providers of “content” become the key pro- small-scale independent publishers ducers for the Internet and other media, where cre- (Germany), and structural funds and tax ativity has multiple applications, cultural industries breaks to encourage private investment in that might have been merely luxuries in an earlier era content enterprises (Canada, France, Australia, India, among others). 17 become more central.

As Frances Cairncross concludes in The Death of In the Bush Administration’s 2001 International Trade Distance, the fear of being overwhelmed by the output Legislative Agenda, the intent is for the US to achieve of Hollywood is “greatest in Europe.” Two trends, she g reater trade liberalization for all service sectors. says, worry Europeans: “the collapse of the local Article XX(f) of the General Agreement on Trade and movie industries and the rise of American imports.”18 Tariffs (GATT) provides an exemption from all GATT Cairncross points out that, by the early 1990s, the box obligations where a country imposes trade barriers to office take of European-made films in their home mar- preserve treasures of historic, artistic, or archaeologi- ket had dropped to one-sixth of its 1957 level in real cal significance to a country’s heritage. Thus, coun- terms. And, this was so notwithstanding the fact that tries are at liberty to restrict access to their “treasures.” European films cost on average 10 percent of what American films cost and were 80 percent subsidized The principal cultural trade disputes involve what are by the State. As Angus Finney in The State of European called “audiovisual and related services” which Cinema quotes British film producer David Puttnam: include theatrical motion pictures, television, home “If we make a film that nobody comes to see, who do video entertainment, transmission services, and we seek to blame?” Finney also quotes French actress recorded music. This is an essentially commercial Jeanne Moreau: “If carpenters made chairs the way arena in which there have been long standing dis- that [French] screenwriters produce scripts, we would putes, particularly with the Europeans and Canadians. There are few real trade disputes in the all be sitting on the floor.” 19 24 25 not-for-profit part of the arts sector, although labor The bottom line here appears to be a mixed one. On union induced immigration restrictions on foreign the one hand, American audiovisual content domi- artists in U.S. productions impede the ability of U.S. nates world audiences because world audiences like producers to develop the best possible fare. it. It does so without direct subsidy. On the other hand, European and the Canadian governments have By the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in 1995, the created restrictions on the free entry of foreign cultur- E u ropean Union (EU) had withdrawn its market al products for what they deem larger national goals. access commitment which the US had sought. The Yet, much of their own heavily subsidized content has final General Agreement on Trade Services (GATS) little broad appeal, even in their own countries. did not contain a “cultural exception” as the EU Further, communications technology is challenging desired. In addition to the United States, eleven other the capacities of governments everywhere to enforce countries (Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, such restrictions, and in any case, most other countries South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, lack the vast domestic primary and secondary mar- Singapore, and Thailand) ensured continued access to kets from which they might recoup a substantial per- their markets. Prior to the North American Free Trade centage of their investments in such endeavors. A g reement (NAFTA), the Canada-U.S. Free - Tr a d e Agreement contained provisions that applied to all three NAFTA countries (Canada, Mexico, and the CULTURE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS U.S.) whereby trade in cultural goods and services could have been restricted, providing any country The tension between trade and culture should lead us affected by such measures applied counter-measures to examine more broadly the role of culture in the of equivalent commercial effect. international relations of the United States. Culture has been important to America’s relations with the The Office of the US Trade Representative argues that: rest of the world in a number of ways. While the access to international markets is necessary to recoup stakes for trade in cultural goods and services have high production costs; that the GATS has flexibility to risen, access to, and understanding of, the cultures of accommodate special cultural concerns (including the others offer as many opportunities for cooperation as possibility of partial as opposed to full commitments for conflict. Culture’s capacity to foster understand- to it); and that the GATS does not prevent govern- ing among peoples is especially true in the area of ments from subsidizing audiovisual services on a educational exchange and cultural diplomacy. Our non-discriminatory basis (with the subsidies open to oldest relations with Europe and Latin America have foreign as well as domestic producers). The U.S. says been cultural. it is seeking “negotiated commitments for the audiovisual sector that establish clear, dependable, and pre- William Glade, of the University of Texas at Austin, dictable trade rules with due account taken of the sec- writes: tor’s specific sensitivities.”21 26 27 Of the two sets of policies [educational took place after the Second World War under the aus- exchange and cultural diplomacy], trans-bor- pices of the program initiated by Senator J. William der educational interactions are much older, Fulbright. It is perhaps the most prestigious program dating back to the late 1700s when newly of its kind. Although the participation of the arts in established learned societies, in the spirit of these exchanges has been overshadowed by the age, institutionalized communication exchanges in the social sciences and the humanities, between their members and those of similar the latter having been strengthened by government’s organizations in Europe and Latin America. concurrent promotion of American Studies abroad, Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was the first other exchange programs have been initiated to pro- American selected for membership in the vide for a modest increase in resources available to Spanish Academy of History, and the exchanges involving the arts. American Philosophical Society (est. 1743) was the first learned society to elect The Fulbright and related exchange programs con- Europeans and Spanish Americans as corre- tribute not only to a genuine opening up of the partic- sponding members. Before the mid-1800s, ipating countries; they also have had a beneficial eco- many privileged Americans, or those with the nomic impact. Richard J. Arndt, longtime diplomat requisite calling, set off for Europe to write, and former president of the Fulbright Association, has paint, perform, and to study the humanities, noted that the “dividends for American society and the visual arts, music, and architecture. By the economy are not always obvious, since “ invest- 1900, American universities and museums ments will not pay off in foreign relations terms for a were sponsoring overseas expeditions, some decade or two…”23 But they do pay off: to the Mediterranean littoral, others to Latin America where American artists and writers students return to their countries and begin were already roaming with easel and pen. almost immediately to shape attitudes, create new demands, launch new needs and open By the mid-1800s, too, American missionaries new markets for U.S. experience and prod- were fanning out over Asia and the Middle ucts….Cultural exchanges are certainly not East, sending the earliest foreign students designed to boost the economy, but economic back to the States. …After World War I, bilat- advantage—like propaganda—flows as a nat- eral and multilateral assistance pro g r a m s ural by-product.24 poured resources into institution building in education, thereby providing expanded The U.S. government’s strategy has almost always opportunities for students and established been to provide seed money and to encourage the scholars to move across borders.22 principal burden of the exchange to be taken over by the private sector—for reasons quite different from The most important advance in educational exchange those that have driven cultural diplomacy. Thus it is 28 29 no surprise that from the dawn of the 20th Century leadership of the indomitable Elihu Root and the biggest players have been large foundations, non- Nicholas Murray Butler, the American Library profit organizations, and academic institutions. Glade Association, the American Council of Learned notes: Societies, and the American branch of the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation of the League of Nations. Not long into the twentieth century, mission- The system also included initiatives that sprang, ary funders were joined (then overshadowed) directly or indirectly, from such gatherings as the 1936 by secular foundations in promoting educa- Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of tional development and exchanges. The first, Peace. Indeed, it was out of this Inter- A m e r i c a n the Rockefeller Foundation, was only a year Conference and the general aura of Pan Americanism old when in 1914 it set up the China Medical surrounding the Good Neighbor Policy that the State Board to introduce Western medicine. 25 Department, somewhat diffidently because of the pio- neering role of the private sector in international cul- A multitude of other good works followed, as foun- tural relations, went on to establish in 1938 its first dations funded education, research, artistic touring Division of Cultural Relations.2 6 Thus was the companies and international exchanges of all kinds. enlightened cosmopolitanism of the East Coast Coupled to the fact that constant flows of immigrants Establishment institutionalized into explicit public continuously added to the American cultural mix, policy. nongovernmental educational exchanges were the most important cultural link between the U.S. and the As World War II engulfed more and more countries, rest of the world until the period preceding World U.S. national security interests seemed, in fact, to War II. require a more overt attention to cultural diplomacy. In particular, the attempted seduction by the Axis Of central importance for the long-term configuration powers of our allies in Latin America led American of international cultural relations was the growing decision makers to involve the cultural aspects of involvement, in the inter-war period, of learned soci- diplomacy as yet another means of counteracting the eties and other institutions related to higher educa- influence of Fascism in that region. This effort pro- tion. Indeed, this system — private, voluntary, sup- vided the basis for post-war uses of cultural diploma- ported by philanthropy, and juxtaposing idealistic cy to support the spread of Western democratic objectives with an elite perspective that recast the old notions. Glade states: missionary impulse in secular terms — rested upon a variety of organizations and events. A course-altering decision was taken in 1938 when the Division of Cultural Relations was Coming of age in the 1920s, this system of exchanges set up in the Department of State. Thus began consisted of several intersecting networks that includ- the new function of cultural diplomacy, with ed the Institute for International Education under the which education exchanges were joined. 30 31 A secular replay of the old missionary cy uses the techniques of public relations (and impulse, cultural diplomacy was conceived as sometimes psychological warfare) while cul- persuasively telling the story of America’s cultural diplomacy is rooted in education and tural accomplishments, and social, political, example. In sum, cultural diplomacy rests on and economic procedures, to the world—and, the premise that allowing American cultural secondarily, promoting greater knowledge of activities and leaders to speak for themselves foreign cultures.27 abroad is the best advertising for the virtues of a free society. That the goal is political—pro- The new emphasis on cultural diplomacy was not an jecting a favorable image of American society American innovation. France and Britain had begun abroad—must be appreciated; but, that the their initiatives earlier, but as America became a glob- methods of cultural diplomacy—the fre e al power, cultural diplomacy became an important exchange of ideas, events, and peoples—are part of U.S. foreign policy. [in some sense] nonpolitical has been less well-understood and perhaps even less appre- The origins of the U.S. State Department’s first forays ciated.28 into cultural diplomacy involved both the short-term attempt to counter Axis propaganda and longer range The inter-mixture of these two aspects of America’s support for exchanges. The exchange effort was con- foreign cultural relations has aggravated some of the ceived as increasing the receptivity of others to our trade tensions mentioned above. The situation is com- propaganda effort. But these two aspects of cultural plicated further by the fact that the participating insti- diplomacy should not be confused. Kevin Mulcahy tutions and individuals generally bring still other writes: objectives to the table. Supporting a U.S. cultural presence as part of America’s overall Cold War strate- [E]xchanges must be distinguished from propa - gy led many Europeans and Latin Americans to sus- ganda. Both are legitimate activities of gov- pect that any cultural activities involving Americans, ernments as they seek to project their interests no matter how innocent, were linked to the CIA. In abroad. Propaganda has an admittedly nega- some part, the fears that many of our friends express tive connotation, but as used here simply about Americanization may be linked to these earlier refers to the range of information and psycho- suspicions. logical activities (such as films, news stories and broadcasts) that seek to explain to other people what American foreign policy is about. Such informational diplomacy has an explicit, immediate political content; cultural diplomacy does not: its methods are indirect and its goals are long-range. Informational diploma- 32 33 Intellectual Property. There is a historic balance between the rights of “fair use” with POLICY PROPOSALS those of “ownership” in U.S. Copyright Law. This balance may have eroded as the major copyright owners have secured incre a s e d American interests, in the context of globalization, can rights to lock up access to their property for be optimally promoted if we adopt an activist stance longer periods and in expanded circ u m- in public policies involving the arts and culture. This stances. Congress needs to examine the prac- requires, first, an understanding of how culture affects tical results that now ensue from its enactment our relations with other countries and our competi- of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of tiveness in the world economy. Second, we need to 1998. acknowledge our allies’ concerns about culture when negotiating our international economic intere s t s . Financing. There is a need to expand the Finally, we need to be attentive to how we organize availability of credit for smaller enterprises our cultural diplomacy. that often spur the new technologies and business models of the future. The federal government should examine its current programs Culture and the New Economy to see whether new creative enterprises are accomplishing optimal results in relation to America’s international competitiveness will depend the stimulation of capital for these purposes. on the capacity of its people and its institutions to manage the intrinsic elements of the New Economy. P reventing monopolies. Competitiveness The US currently enjoys a lead over others. But that depends on free and open markets. Anti-trust economic advantage will dissipate if we do not con- and other regulatory policies developed in an tinue and enhance our individual and corporate industrial age need to be examined in order to capacities to invent and manage creatively intellectu- determine whether they are assuring fair and al and cultural assets. open pipelines for a variety of intellectual and cultural content, particularly in light of the Education. Advanced intellectual and cre- large conglomerates that dominate distribu- ative skills, emphasizing interdisciplinary and tion channels, and in some instances produc- independent thinking, need to be taught tion, in the electronic, audio/visual, and print beginning in preschool and continuing media. through graduate school. The methods for doing this (including testing) need to be eval- uated in the classroom. Education in, and Culture and Trade through, the arts can be instrumental in reach- ing this national goal. The United States has tended to view cultural products and services in the same way as other traded 34 35 goods and services. This has been the U.S. policy in The European Commission permits national enforce- multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations. We may ment of quotas legitimized by its “Television without wish to re-examine this policy.29 The American enter- B o rders” Directive. And, European courts have tainment industry’s general competitiveness, new extended the reach of national quota legislation to technologies, and the policies of other countries may satellites. But the reality is different. There is very lit- well neutralize protectionist measures even if we tle a country can do to prevent DBS transmissions. accede, as we often must, to excepting cultural prod- Jamming transmissions, a practice associated with ucts and services from free trade agre e m e n t s . non-democratic governments, has become onerous Moving in the direction of the Europeans and others politically. would remove a source of irritation while not necessarily damaging our general trade interests, at least in The second technology that favors Hollywood culture. Such movement might, however, create neg- involves digital compression, which greatly reduces ative precedents in other areas where we seek free the amount of information that needs to be carried on trade in services. a television spectrum. This technology expands the capacity many hundreds of times, making possible The two technologies most likely to vitiate cultural “television on demand.” Viewers are able to choose a protectionism are direct broadcast satellites (DBS) and program or film from a library and to be able to see it digital compression. These technologies will essen- at anytime. National quota legislation in the face of tially make it impossible for countries to limit the “television on demand,” could well become meaning- number of U.S.-produced programs shown in prime less as the technology proliferates. time. Such limits were, of course, already problemat- ic: is a television show produced by TriStar Television Foreign government officials responsible for telecom- (owned by Japan’s SONY corporation, but located in munications policy are also proving themselves to be California) American or Japanese?30 Even if one could allies of Hollywood. Since the 1980s, an international clearly define the national origin of such products, the wave of privatizations31 has seen countries that had days of television quotas could soon be over. known only public service broadcasters, or a handful of independent channels, accommodate dozens of pri- Available for over a decade, DBS allows consumers vate companies offering television shows. These pri- to put up a satellite dish not much larger than a din- vate companies are financed by advertising rather ner plate, and receive programming from a number of than by taxes.32 This proliferation of television broad- private companies. For many European and Asian casters has resulted in a rapid increase in the number subscribers, these DBS companies are often based in of channels, while the growth in the television watch- countries different from those of their customers. ing audience has remained steady. Fewer viewers They offer mixed programming, with much of it, due per channel means that markets have become frag- to price and customer demand, coming fro m mented. Confronted with diminished audiences on Hollywood. which to base their advertising rates, companies have 36 37 become sensitive to the cost of programming (known that can appeal to these diverse publics. The fortunate as the licensing fee).33 bonus effect is that these stories also appeal to many people outside the United States.36 This factor, along In a world of fragmented markets and shrinking with the evident investment in production values, advertising revenues, the U.S. has a clear advantage. explains much of the success of American fare in for- While American films and television programs have eign markets. much higher production (and marketing) costs than those of their foreign competitors, the licensing fees Diversity has also been beneficial as Hollywood are actually cheaper. This is because U.S.-made prod- draws much of its talent from around the world.37 It is ucts are amortized over much larger markets. a matter of conventional economics that the larger the America not only has a huge domestic primary mar- pool of potential employees one can tap, the better the ket; it also has a broad secondary domestic market. quality of the workers one can hire. This has recently Television shows are sold once to networks and a sec- been recognized by the U.S. networks, which have ond time to local channels as reruns. Finally, both now made greater efforts to recruit minorities for both films and television shows are sold to a substantial sides of the camera.38 international market. The only companies that can today readily distribute to the entire world market Cultural diversity on a global scale has real economic (and not just regions) are American.34 and non-economic advantages. It can encourage innovation. New ideas abroad can stimulate new In addition to the fact that we have little to lose eco- ideas here. The “Western” The Magnificent Seven was nomically, at least in the area of cultural products, we a direct imitation of Kirosawa’s “Eastern” S e v e n also have an historically given interest in a diversity of Samurai. And, French comedies can become middle- cultural products and services. Economists often see brow American fare like Three Men and a Baby. a heterogeneous population as simply adding to Foreign films are, of course, most useful when they transaction costs.35 However, diversity can also be an are different, when they set new trends. In countries advantage. Part of the reason for Hollywood’s success where the tradition of film is art, rather than industry, is not just that it produces for a huge domestic market. innovation provides, at the very least, variety. It also produces an extremely diverse market. Moreover, ideas from the art house often can get incorporated into the next round of commercial prod- Discovering the kinds of stories that interest various ucts from Hollywood. In this way, innovation that combinations of midwesterners, southerners, Jewish comes from abroad can end up benefiting U.S. pro- urbanites, Latin immigrants, African- and A s i a n - ducers and consumers. Americans, is no mean feat. In Hollywood the task has become internalized, even though producers often think of their projects only in terms of whether or not they are good stories. Implicitly, a good story is one 38 39 Culture and International Relations form a corps of specialists with distinctive expertise in aesthetic and humanistic dimen- The area of cultural diplomacy is one where America sions of foreign relations. This rich resource of has the luxury of building on success. What appears knowledge about broad cross-cultural forces to be important, argue both Mulcahy and Arndt, is the — not just in the arts and education but also in need to reconcile the conflicts that occasionally arise religion, ideology, the media, and popular cul- f rom trying to accommodate both long-term and t u re — risks being diminished, with its short-term goals.39 This conflict has become a greater functions distributed among line agencies challenge because the needs of public diplomacy and principally concerned with immediate devel- opments in regional politics. cultural diplomacy are not always complementary. In the latter half of the 20th century, the United States The creation of the post of under secretary for Information Agency dealt with both cultural and pub- public diplomacy could also be an opportuni- lic diplomacy. In 1999, when the agency was folded ty to add a distinctive voice to the foreign pol- back into the Department of State under the Office of icy making process. As a politically account- Public Diplomacy, some called for a reconsideration of able senior State Department official respon- its purposes. sible for an autonomous bureau of cultural and informational officers, the under secretary Dick Arndt asserts that: would be uniquely positioned to explain the cultural perspectives of foreign peoples to The new office of educational and cultural other policy makers and to the American peo- affairs in State, under the Undersecretary for ple. With the advice of cultural and informa- Public Diplomacy, must define its purposes tional experts, the under secretary for public and goals clearly and separately from those of diplomacy could also “tell America’s story to Public Diplomacy. At the same time, the sep- the world” as well as “tell the world’s story to 41 arate definitions of Public Diplomacy and its America.” cultural-educational sibling must mesh. Richard Arndt notes the “deplorable decline in budg- And Mulcahy notes: ets” for the cultural dimension of diplomacy which peaked in constant dollars in 1966. He reports that all Ideally, the educational, cultural, and informa- but a few American libraries abroad have been closed, tional activities specialists formerly housed at that formal programs in the performing and the visu- the US Information Agency (USIA) should al arts have been dropped, that cultural centers are remain together as a distinct operating unit starving for support, that exchanges have held firm in within the State Department, but the person- the abstract but have done badly in constant dollar nel and functions of USIA are being distrib- terms, that staffing of embassy cultural offices has uted among the department’s re g i o n a l been slashed, and that positions targeted to culture bureaus. Practitioners of cultural diplomacy and education have been taken over by generalists. 40 41 He urges budgetary increases, arguing that culture is History suggests … a set of principles and val- now more important than ever. ues that emerge from the US experience of cultural diplomacy, public and private, since the The task of cultural diplomats is a challenging one. It 18th century. They are indispensable values, if requires staffing by America’s most talented individu- a decent cultural diplomacy is to help link a l s .4 2 Quite apart from their regular duties that American culture and education with the revolve around the exchange programs, cultural world at large. In a restless period of irre- affairs officers are often invaluable links with intellec- versible globalization and interdependence, tuals, artists, and student groups. Those groups are yet in a time of neo-nationalism as nationals often influential in shaping public opinion and are too seek identity in the post-colonial period, a often anti-American in their opinions. Given the decent cultural diplomacy will affect the wel- importance of many cultural postings, the tradition of fare and the long-range security of our plan- assigning prominent non-c a reer people should be 44 expanded with additional funding for such temporary et. assignments. Among those who might be considered are university professors, arts and educational administrators, journalists, trade union officials, and artists. With established reputations in their fields, such Recommendations appointees could both open doors closed to regular o fficials and stimulate the career officers in an This paper suggests: embassy. America’s trade advantages in cultural products Additionally, career cultural affairs officers should be and services can be maintained even if the US is given opportunities to enhance not only their linguis- less adamant about opposing cultural exceptions tic skills, but also their familiarity with literature, his- to free trade. The technologies of direct broadcast tory, science, and music in other nations. Cultural offi- satellites and digital compression tend to moder- cers should have an all-inclusive knowledge of ate or even blunt the impact of cultural protec- American culture — to communicate its significance tionism. Moreover, maintaining diverse sources of to other nations and to their fellow Americans. Now is cultural products and services, on a global as well the time to invest in a corps of cultural diplomats as national level, provides value added for responsible for sensitizing the American public to American consumers and producers while allow- other cultural viewpoints and for portraying abroad ing other countries to produce their distinctive the diversity of American culture.43 cultures as a valued public good.

The stakes for cultural diplomacy are high. It is not America’s long term international competitive- overly dramatic to conclude with the words of career ness in the “Knowledge Economy” will depend diplomat Richard Arndt: on improved education, modernized regulation of 42 43 intellectual property and knowledge monopolies, NOTES and micro-financing of small, creative enterprises. These efforts will need to concentrate, in part, on 1 “Negotiating the Global Maze Artfully,” Going Global: the cultural ingredients intrinsic to the Proceedings of the 2000 Barnett Arts and Public Policy Knowledge Economy. Symposium, p. 75.

The US may be able to live with some cultural 2 Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree exceptions through existing flexibilities in the (Farrar Strauss Giroux 1999), pp. 7 and 9. General Agreement on Trade Services (GATS), but 3 there is also no need to adopt a pose of rigid oppo- Id, p86 . sition to the forms of exception advocated by the 4 Asseem Prakash and Jeffrey A. Hart, “Introduction,” Europeans and Canadians. Generally speaking, Globalization and Governance (London and New York: the US should show more sympathy with the cul- Routledge, forthcoming), p. 4 (manuscript). As Coase tural dilemmas that other countries experience in and others have shown, however, the allocational the face of American popular culture. processes internal to firms are indirectly constrained by markets as they are internalized chiefly when this lowers State Department programs in support of educa- transaction costs to below market-generated outcomes. tional and cultural affairs, on the one hand, and public diplomacy, on the other, must be kept care- 5 Friedman, p.356. fully distinct, even though they are fundamental- ly compatible. Furthermore, both cultural 6 Recent changes in the European economies, which exchanges and public diplomacy need the have increased competitiveness and dynamism, have all resources and administrative muscle to carry out taken place around centers of higher learning. See their particular mandates. Cultural off i c e s William Drozdiak, “Old World, New Economy,” The abroad need to be tailored to fit each country’s Washington Post, 18 February 2001, p. H-1, H-5. specific situation and be staffed with Americans of 7 high achievement. Distinguished university pro- Shalini Venturelli, “From the Information Economy to the Creative Economy: Moving Culture to the Center of fessors, arts and educational administrators, jour- International Public Policy,” paper prepared for the nalists, trade union officials, and artists should be Center for Arts and Culture, p. 12. recruited for temporary assignments. US govern- . ment programs should facilitate exchanges for 8 Ibid, p. 19. their long-term intellectual, artistic, and educational value, rather than tie them to often transient 9 Id., p.20. policy objectives. 10 Id., p.21.

11 Paul Farhi and Megan Rosenfeld, “American Pop Penetrates Worldwide,” The Washington Post, 25 October 1998, p. A1. 44 45

12 Id., p. A26. 23 Richard Arndt, “Cultural Diplomacy and the Public Agenda,” paper prepared for the Center for Arts and 13 Kevin Mulcahy “ Cultural Protectionism v. Cultural Culture, p. 9. Imperialism: U.S.- Canadian Cultural Relations” paper prepared for the Center for Arts and Culture. 24 Ibid..

14 Mulcahy, “Cultural Protectionism”; Sanghyung Yoon 25 Glade, p. 2. and Harvey B. Feigenbaum, “Global Strategies for National Culture: Korean Media Policy in International 26 Frank Ninkovitch, The Diplomacy of Ideas: U.S. Foreign Perspective,” Seoul Journal of Business, 3, 1 (Fall 1997). Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. 15 There is considerable debate as to whether movies and TV shows are “products” or “services”. The latter 27 Glade, pp. 3-4. designation obviates “local content” regulations. I am grateful to Chris Maule on this point. 28 Mulcahy, “Cultural Diplomacy”, p. 4.

16 Mulcahy,, “Cultural Protectionism,” p 4.. 29 Patricia Goff, “Culture Industries: Moving Beyond the State vs. Market Debate,” Paper presented at the 17 Shalini Venturelli, “From the Information Economy to American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, the Creative Economy: Moving Culture to the Center of Atlanta , Georgia, September 1999. International Public Policy,” paper prepared for the Center for Arts and Culture, pp. 14,15. 30 Even countries as sensitive to American production as France, gave up grouping films by country of origin 18 Frances Cairncross, The Death of Distance. (Harvard in the Cannes Film Festival because of they are so fre- Business School Press, 1997) pp. 249-51. quently produced by people from more than one country. See Cari Beauchamp and Henri Béhar, Hollywood on 19 Angus Finney, “The State of European Cinema” the Riviera (New York: William Morrow, 1992). (Cassell 1996), pp. 13,16. 31 For an analysis of the reason for this broad interna- 20 Ibid., 16. tional movement, see Harvey B. Feigenbaum, Jeffrey R. Henig, and Chris Hamnett, Shrinking the State: the 21 STR Paper “Audiovisual and Related Services” (STR Political Underpinnings of Privatization (Cambridge, Web Site). England: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

22 William Glade, “Art, Culture, and the National 32 See Richard Collins, “The Screening of Jacques Tati: Agenda,” paper prepared for the Center for Arts and Broadcasting and Cultural Identity in the European Culture, pp. 1-7. Community,” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, 11. 2 (1993). 46 47 33 Not to be confused with Britain’s “television license,” WORKS CITED which is a tax on households. Broadcasters pay the “licensing fee” to companies owning the rights to a pro- Andreeva, Nellie. “Color TV,” Hollywood Reporter, gram. May 23-29, 2000

34 Farhi and Rosenfeld, op.cit. Arndt, Richard. “Cultural Diplomacy and the Public Agenda.”Unpublished paper on file at the Center for 35 I have been greatly impressed by the thoughts of my Arts and Culture, Washington, D.C., 2000. colleague Stephen C. Smith on this topic. Some of the argument below derives from his “Does America ‘Draw Beauchamp, Cari and Henri Béhar. Hollywood on the Strength from Diversity’? Economic Institutions and Riviera. New York: William Morrow, 1992. Cultural Heterogeneity,” Department of Economics, The George Washington University, June 1994, unpublished. Cairncross, Frances. The Death of Distance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 36 The Greco-French filmmaker Costa-Gavras expressed 1997. a similar idea to me in an interview with him in Paris, January 1999. Collins, Richard. “The Screening of Jacques Tati: Broadcasting and Cultural Identity in the European 37 The world, however sees this as a form of “brain Community,” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law drain.” Journal, 11. 2 (1993).

38 Nellie Andreeva, “Color TV,” Hollywood Reporter, May Farhi, Paul and Megan Rosenfeld, “American Pop 23-29, 2000, pp. 18-20. Penetrates Worldwide,” The Washington Post, 25 October 1998, p. A1. 39 Mulcahy, “Cultural Diplomacy”, p. 14; Arndt, passim. Feigenbaum, Harvey. “Accepting the Cultural 40 Arndt, p. 12. Exception: A No-Cost Policy for Cultural Diversity.” Unpublished paper on file at the Center for Arts and 41 Mulcahy, “Cultural Diplomacy,” p. 15. The position Culture, Washington, D.C., 2000. of Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs was established in the U.S. Department of State Feigenbaum, Harvey, and Jeffrey R. Henig, and Chris in October 1999. Hamnett. Shrinking the State: the Political Underpinnings of Privatization. Cambridge: 42 Arndt, p. 13. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

43 Mulcahy, “Cultural Diplomacy,” p. 16. Finney, Angus. The State of European Cinema. Cassell, 1996. 44 Arndt, p. 10. 48 49 Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Venturelli, Shalini. From the Information Economy to Farrar Strauss Giroux, 1999. the Creative Economy: Moving Culture to the Center of International Cultural Policy. Center for Arts and Gilcher, William. Unpublished paper on file at the Culture, February 2001. Center for Arts and Culture, Washington, D.C., 2000. Wyszomirski, Margaret. “Negotiating the Global Maze Glade, William. “Enhancing International Dialogue.” Artfully,” Going Global: Proceedings of the 2000 Barnett Unpublished paper on file at the Center for Arts and Arts and Public Policy Symposium. Ohio Arts Council Culture, Washington, D.C., 2000. and OhioState University, Columbus, OH, 2000.

Goff, Patricia. “Culture Industries: Moving Beyond Yoon, Sanghyung and Harvey B. Feigenbaum, “Global the State vs. Market Debate,” Paper presented at the Strategies for National Culture: Korean Media Policy in American Political Science Association Annual International Perspective,” Seoul Journal of Business, 3, 1 Meeting, Atlanta , Georgia, September 1999. (Fall 1997).

Mulcahy, Kevin. “Cultural Diplomacy in the Post- Cold War World.” Unpublished paper on file at the Center for Arts and Culture, Washington, D.C., 2000.

-----. “Cultural Protectionism v. Cultural Imperialism: U.S. - Canadian Cultural Relations.” Unpublished paper on file at the Center for Arts and Culture, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Ninkovitch, Frank. The Diplomacy of Ideas: U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “Audiovisual and Related Services” at http://www.ustr.gov/sectors/services/audio.pdf.

Prakash, Asheem and Jeffrey A. Hart, “Introduction,” Globalization and Governance (London and New York: Routledge, forthcoming). 50 51

CENTER FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

The Center for Arts and Culture is an independent think tank which seeks to broaden and deepen the national conversation on culture. Founded in 1994, the Center began its work by establishing the Cultural Policy Network, a confederation of scholars working on cultural policy research at 28 colleges and universities.

Through its cultural policy reader, The Politics of Culture (The New Press, 2000), the Center set out to provide the foundation for a national conversation on issues in cultural policy. The Center’s second full-length set of essays, Crossroads: Art and Religion (The New Press, 2001), provides the context for understanding the relation of religion and the arts in the United States.

A public series, Calling the Question, examines the intersection of cultural and other national public policy areas. The Center has also sponsored critical inquiry into arts and cultural policy through its support of the annual Social Theory, Politics and the Arts conference and a 2001 grants program to individual scholars and graduate students. Most recently, the Center has sponsored symposia on preser- vation and on the First Amendment. Through its web site and list- serv, the Center provides news, information, and ideas about art and culture to a wide public. 52 53

BOARD OF DIRECTORS STAFF

Ms. Gigi Bradford, Executive Director Mr. Frank Hodsoll, Chair Ms. Laura Becker Principal, Hodsoll and Associates Ms. Allison Brugg Dr. Keith Donohue Dr. Glenn Wallach Ms. Marcia Sharp, Vice Chair Ms. Sharon Kangas Associate Scholar Principal & CEO, Millennium Communications Group The Center is advised by a Research Advisory Council, comprised of Mr. James Fitzpatrick, Treasurer leading scholars in the field of cultural policy. Senior Partner, Arnold & Porter

RESEARCH ADVISORY COUNCIL Dr. Alberta Arthurs Dr. John Romano Associate Writer/Producer Dr. Margaret J. Wyszomirski, Chair MEM Associates Director Arts Policy & Administration Program Mr. James Early Dr. James Allen Smith Ohio State University Director Senior Advisor Cultural Heritage Policy to the President Milton Cummings, Jr. Dan J. Martin Center for Folklife and J. Paul Getty Trust Professor Director Cultural Heritage Department of Political Science Master of Arts Management Program Smithsonian Institution Johns Hopkins University Carnegie Mellon University

Mrs. Judith O. Rubin Mr. Harold Williams William Glade Clement Price Chairman President Emeritus Director, Mexican Center Professor Playwrights Horizon J. Paul Getty Trust Professor of Economics Department of History University of Texas-Austin Rutgers University-Newark

Stanley Katz Ruth Ann Stewart Director Research Professor in Cultural Policy Center for Arts & Center for Urban Policy Research Cultural Policy Studies Rutgers University-New Brunswick Princeton University GlobalCVR 1/2/02 1:04 PM Page 1