SOCIAL CAPITAL THROUGH ARTS FESTIVAL GOVERNANCE? THE CASE OF LIGHTNIGHT LIVERPOOL A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2020 Graeme Moore School of Environment, Education and Development Table of Contents List of Figures 5 List of Tables 6 List of Acronyms 7 Abstract 8 Declaration 9 Copyright Statement 9 Acknowledgements 10 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2 Scope of the thesis 14 1.3 Theoretical focus 16 1.4 Methodology 18 1.5 Contribution to knowledge 19 1.6 Research aim and questions 21 1.7 Chapter structure 22 2 Placing festivals: From culture-led regeneration to social capital 25 2.1 Introduction 25 2.2 Urban Entrepreneurialism: American influence to United Kingdom application 26 Culture-led regeneration as an economic development strategy 29 From urban renaissance to arts austerity 32 2.3 Festivalization and the significance of place 37 Festivalization: ‘Overbearing sameness’ and the dilution of identity 39 Combating festivalization through civic pride and experience 40 2.4 Social capital and festivals 43 Changing notions of social capital: Scaling up the theory 46 Framing the theory: Application to arts festivals 50 2.5 Conceptual framework 52 2.6 Conclusion 54 3 Researching conceptions of social capital through arts festival governance 56 3.1 Introduction 56 3.2 Research design: Setting the boundaries of enquiry 56 2 Adopting a single case study approach 57 3.3 Extending rigour through a mixed-methods approach 59 3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews: Building critical conversations 60 Sampling strategy 61 Interviewing strategy 66 3.3.2 Netnography: Validating social media posts 70 3.3.3 Documentary analysis: Archives, previews and reviews 72 3.4 Constructing knowledge through data analysis 75 3.5 Conclusion 79 4 From global trader to Capital of Culture: Exploring the changing governance and economies of Liverpool 82 4.1 Introduction 82 4.2 The economic and political implications of Liverpool’s declining port 83 4.3 It took a riot? National government policy imposition in Liverpool 85 The rise and fall of left wing militancy in Liverpool 89 4.4 From Objective One funding to Capital of Culture: Liverpool’s EU Journey 94 4.5 Political infighting and programming turmoil: Governing Capital of Culture 96 A World in One City: Authentic representations or sanitised culture? 102 4.6 Policy influence and perception change: Outcomes from Capital of Culture 104 4.7 Conclusion 110 5 Balancing differentiation and economic sustainability: Creating a free arts festival 112 5.1 Introduction 112 5.2 Rethinking the impact of the Creative Communities Programme 113 5.3 Engagement ‘on their own terms’: Mediating perceptions of the arts 118 5.4 Light the night: Replicating popular European festival formats 123 ‘Do something different’: Identity and character through programming 127 5.5 ‘Tons of social capital, just not hard cash’: Arts funding in the age of austerity 130 ‘We have no idea how we’re going to keep funding LightNight’ 133 ‘LightNight is a loss leader for many people’: How do participants offset their inclusion? 138 5.6 Conclusion 143 3 6 Trust, access to resources and tailored support: Open Culture’s distribution of social capital within LightNight 145 6.1 Introduction 145 6.2 How does Open Culture's reputation enhance LightNight's legitimacy? 146 6.3 Communal resources and expectation of reciprocity 149 LightNight and a ‘guaranteed audience’ 150 LightNight and the opportunity to be publicised 152 Participants taking responsibility to promote their own events 155 6.4 Open Culture’s changing roles regarding participant requirements 159 Open Culture as programmer: Trusting participants 161 Open Culture as intermediary: Placing content 163 Open Culture as producer: Providing additional support 165 6.5 The significance of place to LightNight 169 In which ways does the design of LightNight attempt to engender civic pride? 171 How does atmosphere inform experience within LightNight? 173 6.6 Conclusion 176 7 Conclusion 178 7.1 Introduction 178 7.2 Main findings and contribution to knowledge 181 7.3 Recommendations for future study 188 7.4 Implications of the research 189 References 193 Appendix 1: Interview Request Flyer 230 Appendix 2: Pre-LightNight Interview Questions Example 232 Appendix 3: Post-LightNight Interview Questions Example 234 Appendix 4: Consent Form 236 Appendix 5: Research Participants Report 237 Appendix 6: LightNight Audience Survey 239 Word Count – 63,112 4 List of Figures Figure 1: Tmesis Theatre Twitter post promoting their upcoming LightNight Liverpool performances (Source: Tmesis Theatre, 2018: Online) 71 Figure 2: Preview of LightNight Liverpool 2018 Commissions (Source: Davy, 2018:24) 73 Figure 3: One Latin Culture Twitter post highlighting a positive review of their LightNight Liverpool performance (Source: One Latin Culture, 2018: Online) 74 Figure 4: Review of LightNight Liverpool 2018 (Source: Messy Lines, 2018a: Online) 77 Figure 5: Dilapidated Albert Dock before Merseyside Development Corporation regeneration (Source: Adcock, 1984:278) 86 Figure 6: International Garden Festival site under construction (Source: Unger, 2007:124) 88 Figure 7: Newspaper headlines illustrating Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture preparation disarray (Source: Garcia, 2017:14) 99 Figure 8: Headlines from national and international media coverage of Liverpool's European Capital of Culture year (Source: Liverpool Culture Company, 2009b, as cited in Garcia, 2017:16) 104 Figure 9: A giant marionette from the Giant Spectacular of 2018 (Source: Image by the author) 107 Figure 10: LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2012 cover (Source: Open Culture, 2012) 130 Figure 11: Open Culture Facebook post promoting the official after-party (Source: LightNight Liverpool, 2018a: Online) 136 Figure 12: Museum of Liverpool Facebook post promoting shop and café (Source: Museum of Liverpool, 2018: Online) 139 Figure 13: Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark Facebook post promoting dot-art (Source: Orchestral Manoeuvers in the Dark, 2018: Online) 141 Figure 14: Open Culture Facebook post promoting LightNight Liverpool event (Source: LightNight Liverpool, 2018b: Online) 153 Figure 15: Merseyside Transport Trust bus (Source, Liverpool Echo, 2015: Online) 154 Figure 16: Commissioned artist interview (Source, Art in Liverpool, 2018: Online) 155 Figure 17: The Bombed Out Church Facebook post promoting a food hub participant (Source: The Bombed Out Church, 2018: Online) 156 Figure 18: Sensor City Twitter post promoting an exhibitor (Source: Sensor City, 2018: Online) 157 5 Figure 19: LightNight Liverpool online application question (Source: Open Culture, 2018b) 160 Figure 20: LightNight Liverpool commission ‘Stanza’ (Source: Image by the author) 167 Figure 21: LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2015 index (Source: Open Culture, 2015) 170 Figure 22: LightNight Liverpool commission ‘The Imago’ (Source: Image by the author) 174 Figure 23: LightNight Liverpool event ‘Carnival Parade’ (Source: Image by the author) 176 List of Tables Table 1: Research subjects interviewed within each sampling category 187 6 List of Acronyms ACE – Arts Council England CIC – Community Interest Company CCP – Creative Communities Programme CLIP – Culture Liverpool Investment Programme ECoC – European Capital of Culture EU – European Union IGF – International Garden Festival LARC – Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium LIMF – Liverpool International Music Festival LJMU – Liverpool John Moores University MDC – Merseyside Development Corporation NML – National Museums Liverpool OLC – One Latin Culture OMD – Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark RADL – Royal Albert Dock Liverpool UDCs – Urban Development Corporations URC – Urban Regeneration Company VMS – Variable Messaging Sign 7 Abstract This thesis investigates in which ways attributes of social capital theory such as collaboration, reciprocity and trust can further understandings of the governance of arts festivals. Unlike existing festival studies which incorporate social capital into their analysis from the sole perspective of organisers, attendees or local communities, this research focuses upon the sum of relationships between organisers and participants (defined as artists, performers, organisations and venues). The case study is LightNight Liverpool, a not-for-profit, free to attend, annual one-night arts festival organised by community interest company Open Culture. The use of a third sector festival is deliberate, with my reasoning being that the lack of payment to participants would increase the necessity of attributes of social capital to effectively programme and deliver events. The fieldwork took place between January-September 2018 utilising a mixed-methods approach to explore relationships formed within the festival, combining documentary analysis, netnography (analysing social media interactions) and semi-structured interviews. I position Liverpool’s hosting of the 2008 European Capital of Culture designation within the city’s contemporary use of culture as a central component of its urban regeneration strategy. Explaining Open Culture’s changing role post-Capital of Culture, I examine the links between LightNight Liverpool and the trend of festivalization. I argue that through theming the programme and integrating existing creative communities and cultural quarters, Open Culture have successfully marked the festival with differentiation. Through an analysis of austerity induced cuts to arts funding, I contrast the wider pertinence