The local government of Stockholm in 2008 introduced a growth scheme including a financial incentive for the independent arts sector. As financial incentives are virtually non-existent in the cultural sphere, this must be seen as a rather extreme development in cultural policy. The article explores both the rationale behind the new growth scheme as policy tool as well as its reception by the sector through three complementary perspectives: historical institutionalism, ideology analysis and policy values analysis. Contributing to the empirically under-researched area of cultural policy, the combined approach offers a broader understanding of policy development and implementation than would a single perspective interpretation, and acknowledges the complexities of policy making and policy change. The institutional perspective shows that marketisation policy is layered on a previous Folkhem policy with an extended budget facilitating its introduction. An ideology perspective shows how the new growth scheme follows neoliberal ideas of the role of the state as facilitator of market growth in the arts. A values perspective, finally, shows that the economic values of the new cultural policy are not shared by the independent arts sector, but new policy instruments are accepted as they expand resources available for the sector.
AbbingH (2002) Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
2.
AndersenOJPierreJ (2010) Exploring the strategic region: rationality, context, and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review. 46(2): 218–240.
3.
BenjaminL (2010) Funders as principals. Performance measurement in philanthropic relationships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 20(4): 383–403.
4.
BevirM (2000) New Labour: a study in ideology. British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2(3): 277–301.
5.
BorzagaCErmannoT (2006) Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public and nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 35(2): 225–248.
6.
BourdieuP (1992) Les règles del’art [The rules of art]. Paris: Seuil.
BurgessSRattoM (2003) The role of incentives in the public sector: issues and evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 19(2): 285–300.
9.
CampbellD (2002) Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 12(3): 243–259.
10.
Christensen M (2011) Förslag till nytt kulturstöd. Tjänsteutlåtande, Dnr 1.1/3248/2011 [Proposal for new support system for culture. Civil servant statement opinion]. Kulturförvaltningen, Kulturstategiska staben [City of Stockholm Culture Department, Office of Culture Strategy].
11.
CookTDixonM (2006) Performance feedback and probabilistic bonus contingencies among employees in a human service organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 25(3): 45–63.
12.
CraikJ (2005) Dilemmas in policy support for the arts and cultural sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 64(4): 6–19.
EvansG (2000) Measure for measure: evaluating performance and the arts organisation. Studies in Cultures, Organisations and Societies. 6(2): 243–266.
18.
FrenanderA (2005) Kulturen som kulturpolitikens stora problem. Diskussionen om svensk kulturpolitik under 1900-talet [Culture as the main problem of cultural policy. Discussion of Swedish cultural policy in the twentieth centrury]. Hedemora: Gidlunds.
19.
FrenanderA (2007) No discord, or, an area without significant political stakes? Some reflections on Swedish post-war cultural policy discourse. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 13(4): 393–406.
20.
FroelichK (1999) Diversification of revenue strategies: evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 28(3): 246–268.
21.
GarnhamN (2005) From cultural to creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 11(1): 15–29.
22.
GraftonCPermaloffA (2005) The behavioral study of political ideology and public policy formulation. The Social Science Journal. 42(2): 201–213.
23.
GrayC (2009) Managing cultural policy: pitfalls and prospects. Public Administration. 87(3): 574–585.
24.
GrayC (2010) Analysing cultural policy: incorrigibly plural or ontologically incompatible?International Journal of Cultural Policy. 16(2): 215–230.
25.
HardingT (2007) Nationalising Culture. The Reorganisation of National Culture in Swedish Cultural Policy 1970–2002. Published doctoral dissertation. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 393. Linköping: Linköping University, Department for Studies of Social Change and Culture.
HayCWincottD (1998) Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Political Studies. 46(5): 951–957.
28.
HeinrichCMarschkeG (2010) Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 29(1): 183–208.
Hillman-ChartrandHMcCaugheyC(1989) The arm’s length principle and the arts: an international perspective – past, present, and future. In: CummingsMCSchusterM (eds) Who’s to Pay for the Arts?. New York: American Council for the Arts, pp. 43–80.
31.
HinichMMungerM (1994) Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
32.
HoodCDixonR (2010) The political payoff from performance target systems: no-brainer or no-gainer?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 20(suppl. 2): i281–i298.
33.
ImmergutEAndersonK (2008) Historical institutionalism and West European politics. West European Politics. 31(1–2): 345–369.
34.
Jacobson A, Thelander J (2010) Utvärdering av Kulturdirekt - ett marknadsförings- och biljettkontor för det fria kulturlivet i Stockholm [Evaluation of Kulturdirekt - a marketing and ticket office for the independent arts field in Stockholm]. Evaluation report. Retrieved 15 September 2012 from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1392879/HK/101020%20Utv%C3%A4rdering%20av%20Kulturdirekt.pdf.
35.
JohannissonJ(2010) Making geography matter in cultural policy research: the case of regional cultural policy in Sweden. In: SinghJP (ed.) International Cultural Policies and Power. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 127–139.
36.
JohnssonEHallE (2010) Summativ utvärdering av Fonden Innovativ Kultur [Summative evaluation of Fonden Innovativ Kultur]. Evaluation report. Stockholm: The Culture Administration of the City of Stockholm.
37.
JonesPWilks-HeegS (2004) Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008. Local Economy. 19(4): 341–360.
KangasAVestheimG (2010) Institutionalism, cultural institutions and cultural policy in the Nordic countries. Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift. (2267–284.
40.
Kulturutredningen (2009) Betänkande av kulturutredningen [Report by the culture investigation]. SOU 2009: 16, parts 1–3. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.
41.
Le Grand Julian (2003) Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
LeeteL (2000) Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 43(4): 423–446.
43.
LemkeT (2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society. 30(2): 190–207.
44.
LinderSPetersG (1989) Instruments of government: perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy. 9(1): 35–58.
45.
LindqvistK (2010) Utvärdering av bonussystem för det fria kulturlivet i Stockholm 2008–2010 [Evaluation of a bonus system for the independent arts sector in Stockholm 2008–2010]. Evaluation report. Stockholm: The Culture Administration of the City of Stockholm.
46.
LindqvistK (2012) Effects of public sector reforms on management of cultural organizations in Europe. International Studies of Management and Organization. 42(2): 9–28.
47.
Lundstedt G (2011) Ny signal om Stockholmskulturen [New signal regarding culture in Stockholm]. Nummer.se, 17 October. Retrieved 15 September 2012 from http://nummer.se/nya-signal-om-stockholmskulturen/.
48.
McGuiganJ (2005) Neo-liberalism, culture and policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 11(3): 229–241.
49.
MillerT (2009) From creative to cultural industries. Cultural Studies. 23(1): 88–99.
50.
MossGO’LoughlinB (2005) New Labour’s information age policy programme: an ideology analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies. 10(2): 165–183.
51.
NeeV(2005) The new institutionalisms in economics and sociology. In: SmelserNSwedbergR (eds) The Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 49–74.
52.
NewmanJ (2007) The ‘double dynamics’ of activation. Institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 27(9–10): 364–375.
53.
Olsson-Sundelin T (2010) Tjänsteutlåtande: “Rapport – Utvärdering växtpengarna” [Civil servant opinion statement: “Report - Evaluation of the growth money”]. Stockholm: Kulturförvaltningen, Avdelningen för kultur- och integrationsstöd [City of Stockholm Culture Department, Office for culture and integration support]. Dnr 1.1/4736/2010, 2010-11-27. Formal civil servant report to the Culture Committee of the City of Stockholm.
54.
OscarsonS(2010) En kulturpolitik bortom tillväxten [A cultural policy beyond economic growth]. In: OscarsonS (ed.) Att vara eller vara en vara. Visioner om en annan kulturpolitik [To be or be a good. Visions of another cultural policy]. Stockholm: Premiss and Koalition för kulturdebatt.
55.
OstranderS (2007) The growth of donor control: revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 36(2): 356–372.
56.
PaquetteJ (2008) Engineering the Northern Bohemian: local cultural policies and governance in the creative city era. Space and Polity. 12(3): 297–310.
57.
PetersGPierreJKingD (2005) The politics of path dependency: political conflict in historical institutionalism. The Journal of Politics. 67(4): 1275–1300.
Regeringskansliet (2009) Handlingsplan för kulturella och kreativa näringar [Action plan for cultural and creative industries]. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet (Kulturdepartementet och Näringsdepartementet) [Government offices of Sweden (Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Business)].
61.
RentschlerRPotterB (1996) Accountability versus artistic development. The case for non-profit museums and performing arts organizations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 9(5): 100–113.
62.
Rius Ulldemolins J, Rubio Arostegui A (2011) The governance of national cultural organisations: comparative study of performance contracts with the main cultural organisations in England, France and Catalonia (Spain). International Journal of Cultural Policy. Epub ahead of print 28 November 2011. DOI:10.1080/10286632.2011.638981.
63.
SchepersCDe GieterSPepermansR (2005) How are employees of the nonprofit sector motivated? A research need. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 16(2): 191–208.
64.
ScullionAGarcíaB (2005) What is cultural policy research?International Journal of Cultural Policy. 11(2): 113–127.
65.
Sjöstedt M, Brinck C, Fröman I-M (2007) Förbättrade villkor för kulturlivet i Stockholm [Improved conditions for culture in Stockholm. Letter to the Culture Committee of the City of Stockholm]. Skrivelse till kulturnämnden, 30 July, 2007.
66.
SK (2007-12-04) Förslag om bonussystem till det fria kulturlivet, förslag till beslut, 4 December 2007 [Suggestion regarding a bonus system for the independent arts sector, decision proposal]. Stockholm: Stockholms stads kulturnämnd [the Culture Committee of the City of Stockholm].
67.
SK (2008-06-03) Utgångspunkter för bonusen, PM, 3 June, 2008 [Points of departure for the bonus, Pro Memoria]. Stockholm: Stockholms stads kulturförvaltning, Avdelningen för kultur- och integrationsstöd [City of Stockholm Culture Department, Office for culture and integration support].
68.
SK (2010-09-22) Uppdragsbeskrivning för att utvärdera bonussystemet, 22 September, 2010 [Description of commission to evaluate the bonus system]. Stockholm: Stockholms stads kulturförvaltning, Kulturstrategiska avdelningen [City of Stockholm Culture Department, Office of Culture Strategy].
69.
StevensonDRoweDMcKayK (2010) Convergence in British cultural policy: the social, the cultural, and the economic. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. 40(4): 248–265.
70.
StewartJ (2009) Public Policy Values. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
71.
Stockholm budget (2009) Budget 2009 för Stockholms stad och inriktning för 2010 och 2011 samt ägardirektiv 2009–2011 för koncernen Stockholms Stadshus AB [Budget 2009 for the City of Stockholm and direction for 2010 and 2011 with owner directives 2009–2011 for the Stockholms Stadshus AB group]. Retrieved 8 February 2012 from http://www.stockholm.se/OmStockholm/Budgetforslag-2012/Tidigare-budgetar/.
72.
Stockholm budget (2012) Budget 2012 för Stockholms stad och inriktning för 2013 och 2014 samt ägardirektiv 2012–2014 för koncernen Stockholms Stadshus AB [Budget 2012 for the City of Stockholm and direction for 2013 and 2014 with owner directives 2012–2014 for the Stockholms Stadshus AB group]. Retrieved 15 September 2012 from http://www.stockholm.se/OmStockholm/Budgetforslag-2012/Tidigare-budgetar/.
73.
StromE (2003) Cultural policy as development policy: evidence from the United States. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9(3): 247–263.
74.
ThacherDReinM (2004) Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance. 17(4): 457–486.
Tummers L, Vermeeren B, Steijn B, Bekkers V (2012) Public professionals and policy implementation. Public Management Review. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2012.662443.
77.
Van HerpenMVan PraagMCoolsK (2005) The effects of performance measurement and compensation on motivation: an empirical study. De Economist. 153(3): 303–329.
78.
Van MaanenH (2008) One hundred and fifty years after ‘The Introduction’: on the importance of being autonomous. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 14(3): 281–297.
79.
VestheimG(2009) The autonomy of culture and the arts – from the early bourgeois era to late modern ‘Runaway world’. In: PyykkönenMSimanainenNSokkaS (eds) What about Cultural Policy? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture and Politics. Jyväskylä: SoPhi/Minerva, pp. 31–53.
