Governance of cultural heritage : towards participatory approaches

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Governance of cultural heritage : towards participatory approaches © 2021 the Authors Published version Sokka, Sakarias; Badia, Francesco; Kangas, Anita; Donato, Fabio Sokka, S., Badia, F., Kangas, A., & Donato, F. (2021). Governance of cultural heritage : towards participatory approaches. European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 11(1), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3389/ejcmp.2023.v11iss1-article-1 2021 4 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CULTURAL MANAGEMENT & POLICY || Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2021 || ISSN 2663-5771 Governance of cultural heritage: towards participatory approaches Sakarias Sokka, Center for Cultural Policy Research CUPORE, Finland Francesco Badia, University of Bari, Italy Anita Kangas, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Fabio Donato, University of Ferrara, Italy ABSTRACT Keywords: governance participation cultural heritage co-creation public policy and management This article analyzes participatory governance in relation to heritage. Based on previous studies on the implementation of participation and theoretical discussions considering the participatory governance of cultural heritage, we found four types of cultural heritage governance, with differing weights with regard to public authorities, civil society, markets, and citizens. Governmental, corporatist, service-led, and cocreative cultural heritage governance types were identified, which reflect the shifts in participatory approaches to governance from state-centered activities to the proliferation of civil society, and from professionally dominated to more citizen-based activities. According to our analysis, culture and heritage can be conceptualized as instruments for the transformation of attributes and competencies, and they work as mediums to cultivate recognition between institutions and citizens. This includes not only seeking consensus in decision making but also respecting the nuances and values of different heritages. 5 Introduction The subject of participatory governance has recently gained prominence in the fields of public policy and management. The basis of participatory governance is favoring and promoting the direct participation of citizens in the public decision-making processes. The growing relevance of participatory approaches is consistent with the evolution of the concept of governance in the current context of public administration, especially in Europe (Bouckaert, 2017). This implies the possibility of considering a new research agenda for public sector governance, where participation could play a crucial role. The opportunity to develop participatory methods in public administration is strictly connected with the possibility that these methods will emerge to solve problems between different, and sometimes conflicting, “public values” (Nabatchi, 2012). Concerning the development and spread of participatory approaches to governance, Frank Fischer (2006) has construed two prominent shifts: a) from state-centered activities to a proliferation of civil society organizations that deliver services and offer various forms of support to economic and social development and b) from professionally dominated to more citizenor client-based activities, often taking place within the new civil society organizations. Despite much of the rhetoric surrounding the discussion of participation, experiences with new forms of participatory governance show participation to be neither straightforward nor easy. A closer look shows that citizen participation is a complicated and uncertain business that needs to be contextualized, and carefully thought out in advance (Fischer, 2000). It must be carefully organized and facilitated and even cultivated and nurtured, yet without too rigorous a priori specifications (Johanson et al., 2014). In this article, participatory approaches appear to be particularly appropriate for the application of cultural heritage policy and management. Relevant international institutions have claimed the importance of community engagement in cultural heritage management and development since the beginning of this century. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, 2002), the Intangible Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 2003), the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO, 2005), and the Faro Convention of the Council of Europe (Council of Europe, 2005) represent some of the milestones observed along this path. An actual application of participatory methods for cultural heritage presents relevant difficulties, and there is a concrete risk of observing an expectation gap, similar to those highlighted in the literature concerning the effectiveness of democracy (Flinders, 2014). For these reasons, this paper aims to identify different conditions for the adoption of participatory approaches in the context of the governance of cultural heritage. Different policy sectors’ contexts produce distinct kinds of governing practices and procedures that have an impact on the level of citizen participation and affect the definitions of cultural heritage and the types of governance. For example, the international context of cultural policy shows a quite varied situation of national regimes, in terms of institutions, types of funding, and modes of organization (Dubois, 2015; Mulcahy, 2006). The analysis draws on perspectives of participatory governance from earlier studies on the implementation of participation and will contribute to the theoretical discussions considering the participatory governance of cultural heritage. The paper is structured as follows. The next section will introduce the basic concepts used in this analysis. In the following section, four types of cultural heritage governance are identified in relation to the possible interrelation of the elements of the traditional/hybrid definitions of cultural heritage and the lower/higher levels of citizen participation. The paper will end with some concluding remarks, highlighting ideas for future research. Basic Concepts Governance for Citizens Governance is a complex term with some ambiguity traits, and it is often linked to the promotion of democracy and the fight against corruption (RoseAckerman, 2017). The concept of governance is traditionally differentiated from that of government because the former relies on the system of relations between governmental entities and the societal system whereas the latter seems to convey a more coercive power exercised by the public authority (Kooiman, 2003; Peters, 1996; Rhodes, 1997). In this analysis, governance is considered “as governing with and through networks and their cooperative behaviour” (Rhodes, 2007, pp. 1245–1246). Based on the findings of previous research, the extent to which citizens become involved in the SOKKA, BADIA, KANGAS, DONATO 6 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CULTURAL MANAGEMENT & POLICY || Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2021 || ISSN 2663-5771 creation of heritage should have a strong impact on the success of governance processes. Also, academics and professionals in cultural management advocate multistakeholder governance models and the multi-level management of cultural resources (Bonet and Donato, 2011; Kickert, 1997; Li et al., 2020). In these governance systems, there is often a significant degree of autonomy of the actors involved, and the state can only steer the governance networks imperfectly (Stoker, 1998). The varieties of cultural heritage governance that this paper proposes reflect different types of governing with differing weights with regard to public authorities, civil society, markets, and citizens. Previous empirical research reports and articles on governance have identified several important aspects of what it requires. These include constitutional legitimacy, administrative competence, accountability, transparency, and public participation (Ackerman, 2004; Blair, 2000; Cuthill and Fien, 2005; Fung and March, 2001; Kim et al., 2005), which imply attributions like capacity and autonomy but also performance and results (Fukuyama, 2013; Rotberg, 2014). A significant debate about governance regards the development of the conditions for “good” governance. Specifically, since 1989, the World Bank has established conceptual references for the key elements that constitute good governance (Woods, 2000). The concept of good governance is also explicitly noted, in these terms, by the International Monetary Fund, which defines good governance aspects as “the transparency of government accounts, the effectiveness of public resource management, and the stability and transparency of the economic and regulatory environment for private sector activity” (IMF, 1997, p. 3). Later, the OECD (2007, p. 336) defined good governance as follows: “Good governance is characterised by participation, transparency, accountability, rule of law, effectiveness, equity, etc.” Good governance has thus become closely related with participation, which, in this context, has also become an instrument, for example, for the World Bank’s “own agendas” (Fischer, 2006, p. 22). The complexity of good governance can also be easily applied to the main contemporary, transformative challenges facing cultural policies: the call for redefinitions of culture, the desire for easier access to culture and art, and the widening of the borders of cultural fields (Bonet and Négrier, 2018; McGuigan, 2016; Stage, Eriksson, and Reestorff, 2020). The same ideas can be detected in the governance of cultural heritage (Poirrier, 2003; Shipley and Kovacs, 2008). This relates to the struggle between the transformative and the functionalist roles that culture and heritage policy has in society, when heritage, tradition, art, philosophy, religion, education, and advertising can be used by dominant groups to make their dominance appear normal and natural to the heterogeneous groups that constitute the society (Williams, 1961, 1967, 1974). Ultimately, good governance is rooted in trust as it rests upon interaction, negotiation, and resource exchange. This can involve different arenas: governmental arenas, where decisions carry the authority of the state; non-governmental arenas, in which self-organizing citizens make decisions; and new kinds of arenas, where governmental and nongovernmental actors meet to debate and possibly act and decide together (Somerville and Haines, 2008). Good governance can be pursued through the enhancement of community-based decision making at a local level. It can contribute to improving resource allocation, increasing community commitment, reasserting community identities, and strengthening community groups and their voices, which all contribute to the development of new collaborative actions, which, in turn, can increase the success rate of governance (Cuthill and Fien, 2005). Participatory Governance of Cultural Heritage Heritage can be how “very selective material artefacts, mythologies, memories, and traditions become resources . . . [that] are selected according to the demands of the present” (Graham, 2002, p. 1004). A heritage regime is the result of socio-historical, political, and cultural processes of classification (definitions, hierarchies, inclusion, and exclusion), labelling, and support. The identification of heritage is based on an active choice about which elements of culture are deemed worthy of preservation as an “inheritance” for the future. These decisions are generally made by state authorities and international organizations (Blake, 2000; Salazar, 2010). According to Višna Kisić (2014), heritage as a process connects three interdependent categories: firstly, (re)production as a process of the creation or preservation of a desired image of the world; secondly, values as a process of the reflection, recognition, and formulation of desires and choices and as the intended result of creation; and thirdly, identities of new social structures as forms of shaping and representing values. To recognize such categories, institutions and official bodies need to encourage dialogue about values and allow social actors to take part in decisions about 7 SOKKA, BADIA, KANGAS, DONATO heritage (Turnpenny, 2004). A concrete attempt to delineate the concept of cultural heritage emerges from the Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies, the result of the World Conference on Cultural Policies “Mondiacult” in 1982: The cultural heritage of a people includes the works of its artists, architects, musicians, writers and scientists and also the work of anonymous artists, expressions of the people’s spirituality, and the body of values which give meaning to life. It includes both tangible and intangible works: languages …, rites, beliefs, historic places and monuments, literature, works of art, archives and libraries. Every people therefore has a right and a duty to defend and preserve its cultural heritage, since societies recognize themselves through the values in which they find a source of creative inspiration (UNESCO, 1982, secs. 23–24). As an international organization, UNESCO has a very special kind of actorhood. Funded by its member states, it is a high-level forum for intellectual engage, that creates vocabulary to be disseminated on national level, and sets international normative standards (conventions, recommendations, and declarations), that policymakers can follow when (re)formulizing policy domains. (Alasuurari & Kangas 2020.) The definition of cultural heritage by “Mondiacult” has been further developed through the report Our Creative Diversity (World Commission of Culture and Development, 1996), the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001), and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003). Therefore, the consideration of cultural heritage regards both its tangible and intangible dimensions (Vecco, 2010), also in its digital expressions. In the frame of the 2003 Convention, intangible heritage is defined (article 2) as “oral traditions and expressions, including language …, performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, traditional craftsmanship.” The newest theme for local stakeholders emphasizes many ways to get indigenous peoples better involved in the Convention (UNESCO, 2019). There are systematic differences in how people do, make, and say things, and thus, different cultures exist (Cahoone, 2005). The richness of cultural phenomena and practices derives substantially from hybridity, which is a characteristic feature of cultural heritage: hybridity as such refers to variety, combinations, and mixtures, which also makes it impossible to define the moment when a “hybrid” begins (Kuutma, 2013). Consequently, cultural heritage is characterized by a multiplicity of contexts and meanings, changing through time and across space, resulting in a processual production of heritage. The link across time and space makes heritage a constructor of agreed-upon rules for a community, and the identification of cultural heritage can be regarded as a political act. Hence, cultural heritage is a valueladen concept, vulnerable to becoming co-opted by ideology. The phrase “participatory governance of cultural heritage” has gained popularity in recent years (EU, 2018; Voices of Culture, 2015). However, previous research also suggests that participatory governance has become a new orthodoxy in a sense that policy innovations, like participatory budgeting and citizen assemblies, are often celebrated without closer consideration of what kind of arrangements the realization of participatory governance requires (Richardson, Durose, and Perry, 2019). As the UNESCO official documents (UNESCO, 1982, 2001, 2003) illustrate, the governance of cultural heritage requires the involvement of a range of local stakeholders, normally represented by associations that accompany an object or monument and provide the sense of being part of a group (Blake, 2000). In this view, the development of cultural heritage is based on the joint discovery of the community’s own identity, and local actions, like associational memberships and cooperatives, are important for the development of the political capacities of citizens (Fischer, 2006; Holmes and Slater, 2012). Previous research suggests closely scrutinizing the processes that are concerned with the regulation, mediation, and negotiation of cultural and historical values and narratives (Waterton and Smith, 2009). It calls for dialogue where the inclusiveness of heritage definitions is discussed and diversities in communities are heard (Apaydin, 2018; Williams, 1961; Zamarbide Urbaniz, 2019). It seems to be necessary to investigate both what (e.g., defining and adopting cultural heritage) is done and how (the processes and practices). This is particularly true in the context of the governance of cultural heritage so as to understand the varied contextual landscape that such governance is bound to. At the local level, the quality of governance rests both on rules of deliberation and the impact of new political space deliberation on decision-making processes (Farrington, 2011), which imply “using discursive techniques to identify appropriate policy choices for given circumstances,” as Clive Gray (2012, p. 507) writes. The underlying idea of exposed concepts in the field of governance can be expressed in the search for a “new” 8 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CULTURAL MANAGEMENT & POLICY || Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2021 || ISSN 2663-5771 form of governance, based on tools and processes that enable participation (Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary, 2005; Skelcher and Torfing, 2010). Participatory Governance Logics, the Role of Citizens, and Functions of Institutions As illustrated above, the participatory governance of cultural heritage refers to organizing and joining collaborative ventures aimed at intercepting, extracting, processing, and transforming knowledge to make it useable in decision-making processes. Recently, researchers have developed new categorizations to depict how such processes are intertwined with different governance logics and what it means for the nature and form of citizen participation in the processes. In a current analysis of different citizen roles, governance logics, and institutional functions of participatory governance, the researchers formed four distinctive logics for local participatory governance: instrumental, interest-based, deliberation-based, and functional (Danielsson et al., 2018). Instrumental logic is based on vertical relations and the top-down implementation of policy goals, where decision making relies on “the parliamentary chain.” The other three logics are based on horizontal relations, where interests are mediated and articulated (interest-based), reflected via reasoning together (deliberative), or co-produced and coordinated (functional). Citizens can lead their own lives with recognition and develop a sense of belonging to a community based on linguistic, religious, national, or ethnic identity, among other factors that appear to be connected with the definition of cultural heritage (Kangas, 2004). Each of the four logics above grants citizens different roles. According to the instrumental logic of participatory governance, citizens vote, take part in political party activities, and contribute to the top-down implementation of policies. Instrumental logic can be detected in the use of instruments like user surveys, which follow vertical implementation structures. In interest-based participatory governance, citizens participate actively in a role where they represent either their own or group (or both) interests. Interest-based logic leads to the use of instruments like participatory budgeting and the gathering of citizens’ suggestions. In the deliberative model, citizens participate and provide learning in dialogues and public conversations. Deliberative logic is realized through citizen panels and dialogue councils. Finally, according to the functional logic of participatory governance, citizens contribute knowledge and other resources to solve problems efficiently. Functional logic comes alive in governance networks (Danielsson et al., 2018). Political participation also has diverse dimensions at the individual level. According to Ekman and Amnå (2012), manifest forms of political participation include both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary forms of political action, which happen via voting, political parties, partaking in demonstrations, etc. In addition, they refer to “latent forms”, where engagement in activities within the sphere of civil society is important. Since its beginnings, research on participation has stressed the importance of bottom-up perspectives and empowering protocols (Arnstein 1969). Rather than just being a process of creating shared knowledge, participation is a process where people give meaning to themselves and their relationships with others and can discuss differences, boundaries, and ways of belonging in everyday life; their formal and informal practices can meet and alter each other. Sherry Arnstein’s definition of citizen participation delineates participation as a categorical term for citizen’s power (1969). From a Freirean perspective, participation is a dynamic and transformative process of dialogue, which enables people to realize their potential and be engaged in their own welfare (Freire, 1972; see Fischer, 2006). Per Gustafson and Nils Hertting (2017) found that people choose to participate for substantially different reasons. Based on empirical analysis, they produced three distinct types of motives for participation – common good, self-interest, and professional competence, and stated that “both common good and self-interest motives speak for the democratic potential of participation” and “democratic learning and networking … [can] be an integral part of the meaning that certain groups of participants attribute to participatory governance” (2017, p. 546). Participatory processes differ in terms of who is included (i.e., broad involvement versus small groups or interest groups) and who is encouraged to become actively involved (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). Much depends on how much power a political system is willing to grant the people (Thomas, 1995). Participatory governance is a complicated effort, and citizen participation “needs to be carefully thought out in advance,” as Fischer writes (2006, p. 22). Obvious questions regarding participatory governance are still whose voices and how many voices the governance system can recognize and on what terms. In the sense of participatory governance, the practices adopted by institutions are essential questions for a working 9 SOKKA, BADIA, KANGAS, DONATO democracy. To what extent can people participate and influence politics that affect their own lives? New methods of citizen participation can also increase bureaucracy and lead to inefficiency (Farrington, 2011). Possible disadvantages in terms of participation include the heterogeneity of actors, their potentially differing ambitions, and the fact that the means they have at their disposal to take part in participation do not always lead to empowerment. Examination of Participation in Cultural Heritage Governance The aim for this article is to analyze participatory approaches in the governance of cultural heritage. This article also calls for further research in the field, especially to test these observations in different territorial areas and local context (Adell, Bendix, Bortolotto & Tauschek, 2015; Zamarbide Urbaniz, 2019). Next, based on the above-expressed theoretical framework and research dealing with participation and governance in cultural fields, the authors delineate four types of cultural heritage governance and discuss their readiness in terms of participatory governance approaches. The types are formed via the use of two axes, one expressing the heritage definition (a vertical line moving from the institutionalized definition of heritage to the hybrid one) and another expressing the level of citizen participation (a horizontal line covering low to high citizen participation). The four types reflect different types of governance with differing weights regarding public authorities, civil society, markets, and citizens. By analyzing which understanding of heritage these different types adopt and how participatory the processes that produce the heritage definitions are, the aim is to deepen the understanding of participatory heritage governance. All this also relates to the role that heritage has in society: in its institutionalized form, heritage’s meaning is cemented by established institutions and more or less taken as normal and natural, whereas hybridity may bring up disputes based on heterogeneity that challenge this institutionalized understanding (cf. Williams, 1961, 1967, 1974). The two axes form quadrants that describe the types of cultural heritage governance: 1) governmental, 2) corporatist, 3) service-led, and 4) co-creative types of cultural heritage governance. Governmental Different governance systems vary in how they induce and respond to information from society (“feedback”) and in their capacities to reply to this information (“adaptability”) (Duit and Galaz, 2008). The governmental type of cultural heritage governance implies an institutionalized definition of cultural heritage and a lower rate of citizen participation. Incomplete transparencies in terms of the administration FIGURE 1. Types of cultural heritage governance LOWER CITIZEN PARTICIPATION HYBRID CULTURE HERITAGE GOVERNMENTAL CO-CREATIVESERVICE CORPORATIST HIGHER CITIZEN PARTICIPATION INSTITUTIONALIZED CULTURAL HERITAGE 10 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CULTURAL MANAGEMENT & POLICY || Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2021 || ISSN 2663-5771 processes and limited citizen participation can both result from an exclusively defined notion of cultural heritage (Paquette, 2012; Waterton and Smith, 2009). Traditionally, cultural heritage policy and management have often been controlled by governmental bodies. This goes hand in hand with the legitimizing function of the power relations of cultural policy. Even in democratic societies, the culture of the elite becomes legitimized and hegemonic when administrators and experts make exclusive decisions about representations and reformations of culture, and when funding reflects power relations in society that may have consequences for the preservation of these relations (Sokka and Kangas, 2007; Feder & Katz-Gerro, 2012). This type of governance can be compared to “fragile governance” (see Duit and Galaz, 2008): it can become focused on representing traditional hierarchies and face difficulties in accumulating new knowledge, adapting to new circumstances, and achieving collective actions, which makes it poorly equipped to handle change. As a result, citizen may find it difficult to join top-down generated processes and question the motivation and authenticity of public officers, who in turn can be afraid and insecure about what to expect after a potential change. Moreover, public officials often claim that there is no money for the necessary changes (Kangas and Sokka, 2015). The lack of accountability is a common claim when attempts to develop participatory governance are criticized. Citizen participation and engagement require structural support for public action that backs grassroots community development and simultaneously reduces the tendency to create governmental hierarchies (Somerville and Haines, 2008). Public participation and good governance principles are important to create legitimacy, voice, and direction in heritage governance. People need to have opportunities and means to indicate their likes and dislikes to create accountability between them and the administration that governs: such instruments could include instituted public meetings, regular opinion surveys (including their collaborative evaluation), and formal grievance procedures (Blair, 2000). At an organizational level, traditional top-to-bottom bureaucracy presents obstacles to empowermentbased participation. Due to the complex issues and rapidity of change in modern societies, politicians and public officials can face increasing difficulties in effectively managing the diversity of interests of local residents (Ackerman, 2004; Cuthill and Fien, 2005). In the context of social care (Braye and Preston-Shoot, 1995), some barriers to empowerment processes were listed. One of these relates to the organization of public services and the administration’s relationship with residents. Public officers may fear the loss of their status and power, the insufficiency of their professional skills, and the eventual denial of their expertise. This makes them suspicious of their “clients’” emerging competences and emphasizes the mechanisms that reinforce (jurisdictional) power through legislation and administrative terminologies. These considerations seem to be expandable to cultural heritage. The governmental type of heritage governance represents both low citizen participation and the hegemonic vision of heritage. As such, the competence and accountability of the administration can be questioned as it does not produce open, participatory, and democratic protocols and the free transfer of knowledge. To sum up, although this type of governance is still present in the context of cultural heritage management and policy, it does not appear to be suitable for responding positively to the current demands. It represents the instrumental logic of participatory governance, where citizens vote, take part in political party activities, and contribute to the topdown implementation of policies. Corporatist The corporatist type of cultural heritage governance implies an institutionalized definition of cultural heritage and a higher rate of citizen participation. Corporatist governance refers to controlled collaboration between the state and civil society, where established civil society organizations form intermediary structures between the state and the citizens. Corporatism can be identified in many policy areas (Öberg et al., 2011; Torpe, 2014). In corporatist settings, the structural preconditions that make voluntary organizations possible are important indicators of the overall “democratic infrastructure” of society (Torpe, 2014, p. 215). Despite this fact, corporatism is also a matter of benefits: it can be seen as a mutually beneficial exchange between interest groups and government, where “some actors control something that others desire” (Öberg et al., 2011, p. 365). Within its institutionalized arenas, the state can privilege some organizations over others and grant them the status of group representatives in the process of policymaking. In many cases, interest groups and selected professionals have taken part in the formation of cultural 11 SOKKA, BADIA, KANGAS, DONATO policy processes that create cultural heritage without the broader inclusion of local residents (e.g., Sokka and Kangas, 2007). The same problem is known to exist within other sectors. For example, in participatory environmental governance, public meeting attendees and committee members can be members of professional groups and strongly affiliated to interest groups, which leads to a lack of accountability in the eyes of citizen (Parkins and Sinclair, 2014). Once again, the question of who has a voice is relevant because it reflects the inclusive and exclusive patterns embedded in the administrative structures. It is not guaranteed that attempts to develop governance through collaboration with civil society enhance participation. The selection of interest groups can be biased and exclusive, leading to a model of cultural heritage governance that, in principle, is a version of elitism. These problems are also emerging in some fields often related to cultural heritage management, like tourism, where the adoption of the correct empowerment of residents is crucial (Timothy, 2007). For cultural heritage, the level of the success of participatory practices can vary consistently in connection with the specific situation of the site or the local area and depending on the history and tradition of the representative groups (Chirikure, Manvanga, Ndoro, and Pwiti, 2010). In this type of governance, the roles of citizens become defined by instrumental logic. Due to its controlled collaboration between the state and civil society, corporatist governance maximizes stability, but as an exclusive model, it is not flexible with regard to changing circumstances when collaboration with selected interest groups leads to the partial transfer of knowledge and poorly organized feedback (cf. Duit and Galaz, 2008). This can generate an assorted outlook in terms of cultural heritage, which engages the selected actors but does not fulfill the very ideas of changing boundaries, interactions, and negotiations within the networks that are identified to help in creating good governance (Rhodes, 2007). The success of governance seems to be dependent on opening up the process beyond the already established civil society organizations (Ackerman, 2004). Service-led The service orientation of cultural heritage governance implies a hybrid definition of cultural heritage and a lower rate of citizen participation. Governance has been piloted through the development of service delivery models. For example, during the 1980s and 1990s, Australian governments attempted to develop an interface between the government and the community by following the private sector focus on improving customer services (Cutchill and Fien, 2005). This implies a need for balance between the requests of clients and beneficiaries of public services and the economic and efficient use of public resources. Public managers are operating in a context where client (and citizen) needs are not made explicit as clearly as in a market system but where they must still be interpreted and possibly satisfied (Moore 1995). The service delivery perspective is targeted “for” the community, but it easily neglects community capacity building – the civic engagement – that can only be achieved by working with communities (Cuthill and Fien, 2005). British experiences show how the use of markets has created tensions when the members of networks started to rival for contracts instead of aiming at cooperative behavior (Rhodes, 2007). In the end, the rivalry of participants can limit the diversity of cultural expressions when the actors try to maximize their individual utility through market-based selection processes, where only the fittest survive (Duit and Galaz, 2008). Annika Agger and Dorthe Lund (2017) noted how a service-oriented approach makes it hard to engage citizens in the production of public services as a group and limits citizen input regarding service improvement. Even if citizens participate and provide learning in dialogues and public conversations, the problem is that they are much more than customers: marketization allows a citizen to “exit” if they wish but does not provide active participation in decision-making and definition processes (Ackerman, 2004). Such governance can therefore be defined properly as service-led, echoing the shift from citizens to consumers (Clarke et al., 2007). The move towards a “contract culture” in service production has not increased civic participation as it posits the community organizations as parts of hierarchical governance rather than as cooperative partners (Somerville and Haines, 2008, p. 66). Concerning cultural heritage governance, these topics typically emerge in the field of museum management and governance, where the public authority needs to balance the development of a correct managerial approach for the museum with the necessity of the integration of audiences within the museum (Crooke, 2010). This necessity is related to the multiplicity of values associated with cultural heritage. At organizational level, the aim is to provide a service 18 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CULTURAL MANAGEMENT & POLICY || Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2021 || ISSN 2663-5771 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2007. Glossary of Statistical Terms. Available online at: http://stats.oecd.org/ glossary/download.asp Ostrom, Elinor. 1996. "Crossing the Great Divide: Synergy and Development." World Development 24 (6): 1073–1087. Paquette, Jonathan. 2012. From Decolonization to Postcolonial Management: Challenging Heritage Administration and Governance in New Zealand. Public Organization Review 12 (2): 127–138. Parkins, John R., and A. John Sinclair. 2014. Patterns of Elitism within Participatory Environmental Governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (49), 746–761. Peters, B. Guy. 1996. 'Models of Governance for the 1990s.' In The State of Public Management, ed. Donald F. Kettl and H. Brinton Milward. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 15–44. Poirrier, Philippe. 2003. "Heritage and Cultural Policy in France Under the Fifth Republic." International Journal of Cultural Policy 9 (2): 215–225. Ramírez, Rafael. 1999. "Value Co-Production: Intellectual Origins and Implications for Practice and Research." Strategic Management Journal 20 (1): 49–65. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckginham: Philadelphia: Open University Press. Rhodes, R. A. W. 2007. "Understanding Governance: Ten Years On." Organization Studies 28 (8): 1243–1264. Richardson, Liz, Catherine Durose, and Beth Perry. 2018. Three tyrannies of participatory governance. Journal of Chinese Governance 4 (2), 123–143. Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 2017. "What Does 'Governance' Mean?" Governance 30 (1): 23–27. Rotberg, Robert I. 2014. Good Governance Means Performance and Results. Governance 27 (3), 511–518. Salazar, Noel. 2010. 'The Glocalisation of Heritage Through Tourism: Balancing Standardisation and Differentiation.' In Heritage and Globalisation, ed. Sophia Labadi and Colin Long. London & NY: Routledge, 130–147. Sani, Margherita. 2015. Participatory governance of cultural heritage. EENC Ad hoc question. April 2015. Available online at: http://www.interarts. net/descargas/interarts2538.pdf Shipley, Robert, and Jason F. Kovacs. 2008. "Good Governance Principles for the Cultural Heritage Sector: Lessons from International Experience." Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 8 (2): 214–228. Skelcher, Chris, and Jacob Torfing, J. 2010. "Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe." Regulation & Governance 4 (1), 71–91. Sokka, Sakarias, and Anita Kangas. 2007. "At the Roots of Finnish Cultural Policy: Intellectuals, Nationalism, and the Arts." The International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2): 185–202. Somerville, Peter, and Nathan Haines. 2008. "Prospects for Local Co-Governance." Local Government Studies 34 (1): 61–79. Stage, Carsten, Birgit Eriksson, and Camilla Møhring Reestorff. 2020. "Understanding cultural participation through participation – inventiveness, multivalence and epistemic modernisation." Cultural Trends 29 (1), 19–34. Stoker, Gerry. 1998. "Governance as Theory: Five Propositions." International Social Science Journal 50: 17–28. Thomas, Johan C. 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Throsby, David. 2010. Economics of Cultural Policy. Cambridge University Press. Timothy, Dallen J. 2007. 'Empowerment and Stakeholder Participation in Tourism Destination Communities.' In Tourism, Power and Space, ed. Andrew Church 19 SOKKA, BADIA, KANGAS, DONATO and Tim Coles. NY: Routledge, 199–216. Torpe, Lars. 2014. "Corporatism and Social Trust: Bringing Voluntary Organizations 'Back In.'" Journal of Civil Society 10 (2): 204–218. Turnpenny, Michael. 2004. "Cultural heritage, an Illdefined concept? A call for joined-up policy." International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (3), 295–307. UNESCO. 1982. Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies. UNESCO. 2001. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. UNESCO. 2002. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2005. Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. UNESCO. 2019. Living Heritage and Indigenous Peoples. Brochure on Living Heritage and Indigenous Peoples. Available online at: https://ich.unesco. org/doc/src/Brochure-indigenous-people201904-EN.pdf Vecco, Marilena. 2010. "A Definition of Cultural Heritage: From the Tangible to the Intangible." Journal of Cultural Heritage 11 (3): 321–325. Vecco, Marilena, Andrej Srakar, and Michele Piazzai. 2017. "Visitor attitudes toward deaccessioning in Italian public museums: An econometric analysis." Poetics 63 (2017), 33–46. Voices of Culture. 2015. Brainstorming Report. Participatory Governance in Cultural Heritage (July 2015). Structured Dialogue between the European Commission and the cultural sector. Available online at: http://www.voicesofculture.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/2.Brainstorming_ Report_Participatory_Governance.pdf Waterton, Emma, and Laurajane Smith. 2009. 'There Is No Such Thing as Heritage.' In Taking Archaeology out of Heritage. ed. Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 10–27. Woods, Ngaire. 2000. "The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves." World Development 28 (5): 823–841. World Commission of Culture and Development. 1996. Our Creative Diversity. Williams, Raymond. 1961. The Long Revolution. Chatto & Windus. Williams, Raymond. 1967. The idea of a common culture. In From Culture to Revolution ‒ the Slant Symposium, 1967, ed. Terry Eagleton & Brian Whicker. Williams, Raymond. 1974. Communications as cultural science. Journal of Communication 24 (3), 17–25. Zamarbide Urbaniz, Alba. 2019. Buffers beyond boundaries. Bridging theory and practice in the management of historical territories. ENCATC Book Series. Cultural Management and Cultural Policy Education, Vol. 6. Peter Lang. To cite this article: SOKKA, S.; BADIA, F.; KANGAS, A.; DONATO, F. (2021). Problematic issues in constructing the common space of “knowledge societies”: resources of international cooperation in the field of culture. European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy , 11 (1), pp. 4-19.