Welcome to the UCL European Institute, UCL's hub for research, collaboration and information on Europe and the European Union.
The EU is faced with the challenges of fashioning practices and institutions that reconcile the conflicting demands on political representatives from their international partners and their domestic constituents. This has been particularly manifest in the eurozone recently, but it reflects a deeper challenge which also concerns non euro-area members such as the UK.
Prof Albert Weale (UCL SPP)
19 March 2015 More...
Starts: Mar 19, 2015 12:00:00 AM
Professor Laborde warns against the reactivist response to
the Paris murders: they misunderstand the role played by free speech and by laïcité. Further, they allow criminals to
set the term of the debate on how to better facilitate Muslim integration if
Professor Cécile Laborde
26 February 2015 More...
Starts: Feb 26, 2015 12:00:00 AM
Eeckhout revisits the question of EU reform, including different options for
and legal as well as political constraints of such reform.
Professor Piet Eeckhout
20 January 2015 More...
Starts: Jan 20, 2015 12:00:00 AM
The European Capitals of Culture
Publication date: Feb 27, 2013 02:03 PM
Start: Feb 27, 2013 02:00 PM
Dr Uta Staiger
Cultural action in the European Union may be a minor policy field: it enjoyed no formal Community competence until Maastricht, has received all but paltry budget provisions since, and plays little to no role in the key political debates of the day. Yet it is also an exceptionally contested one, linked as it is with suggestions of social governance and the encoding of collective identities. Regularly opposed by some member states wary of Community intervention in this traditionally national (or regional) policy field, its expansion has been described as symptomatic of the ‘EU’s will to power’ (Shore 2006).
As so often, however, the case is a little more complex than that. The European Cities or Capitals of Culture (ECOC) programme, considered one of the most successful cultural initiatives at EU level, is an instructive example. It certainly beats most others in terms of longevity – this January, Marseille-Provence and Košice (Slovakia) have become the 47th and 48th capitals in the ECOC’s 28-year history. Its format too has proven very appealing to EU, national and local interests alike. So much so, in fact, that it has inspired a formidable offspring, the UK City of Culture programme launched in 2013, ‘because it is not until 2022 that another UK city can benefit from the European Capital of Culture programme’. And this in a Member State not especially known for lapping up all things European.
Several factors account for this. First, the ECOC are relatively independent of dirigiste procedures from ‘Brussels’, yet remain firmly anchored in a pan-European framework. When approved by ministers responsible for cultural affairs in 1985 (note: not by Council itself, this was pre-Maastricht), the brief resolution contained virtually no procedural details. Simply meant to ‘highlight the richness and diversity of European cultures’, the ECOC were run loosely under intergovernmental coordination in the margins of both treaties and institutions until well into the 1990s. Only then were procedures formalized, and the programme eventually transferred to EU level. In line with developments in other policy sectors, this was due not to a supranational power-grab but to both national and EU actors aiming to improve transparency, competition and monitoring.
Second, the ECOC have always attracted a wide range of other stakeholders, including local authorities, business interests, cultural organisations and transnationally networked experts. Part of the ECOC’s broad appeal has always been that, while meant to give a cultural basis to integration, they also and perhaps primarily benefit the city and country concerned. As the EU’s contribution is modest – covering only about 1.5% of the total income generated between 1995 and 2004 – and the programme is designed by each city from scratch, organisers need to closely involve expertise from a variety of sectors. Rather than a constraint, these actors have often used the opportunity structures to further not only the ECOC’s European significance, but also their city’s and their own agendas to great effect.
Thus, thirdly, each ECOC can be adjusted, within limits, to serve particular interests and needs. Glasgow 1990 is often considered a watershed moment, turning what had hitherto been high-culture focused summer events in established ‘European’ cities into full-blown, culture-led urban regeneration programmes in less pivotal, often post-industrial cities. It is above all this potential to capitalise on a city’s cultural profile as a tourist destination, investor-friendly location, and high-quality living space, which has sparked so much interest among candidate cities. It does not entirely obliterate the ECCOC’s original mission to highlight their ‘European dimension’, which – through deft interaction of different actors at European level – has returned as a key criterion. However, the exact form and content of it is left to each ECOC to determine.
The particularly felicitous conjunction of these factors may have made the ECOC more successful and less contested than other Community cultural actions. Yet it is representative of them in that it is a multilateral, rather than a Brussels-dictated state-building exercise. Marked by and negotiated between competing interests of institutional and non-state actors at all levels, EU cultural action is these days successful where it makes room for these interests to coalesce.
You can find more on the subject in the new publication:
The Cultural Politics of Europe; European Capitals of Culture and European Union since the 1980s
Edited by Kiran Klaus Patel