THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN
‘REGIONS’ AND ‘CULTURES’, DISCOURSES AND POLICIES:
POLITY AND MARKET MAKING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
This article proposes that the Community’s cultural policy is not only
instrumented to solve legitimacy crisis, as highlighted by the Community itself and by
a scholar (Shore 2000) but also functions in the Community’s regional policy to
attract the Member States and regions to search for the Community politically and
economically. In turn, it results in shaping the Community’s structure as multi level
governance. This process lies in the interplay between ‘regions’ and ‘cultures’ over
the Community’s discourses and policies which can be traced back historically. At the
end of this article, Temple Bar is discussed as a potential case study.
The emergence of ‘culture’ and ‘region’: discourses and policies
Over the last 40 years, the European Community encountered with two main
problems: how to achieve a European union and a monetary union. One point should
be stressed here—in the Post War period, the European unity became a goal of former
rival nations, yet there was no concrete plan how a European Union could look like.
As a result, the Community in the 1960s was dominated by two different visions on
the direction of the Community. With the idea ‘Europe of states’, de Gaulle’s France,
foresaw the European integration only at the level of inter-governmentalism. Whereas
Germany and the rest who supported ‘Europe of peoples’ wished the integration
would go beyond the inter-governmentalism.1
Under these circumstances, the whole Community agreed that in order to
move towards a European Union, ‘the cooperation of the six must go beyond the
political field as such, and will in particular be extended to the sphere of education, of
culture…’.2 Interestingly, both wings in the Community recognized the importance of
1
For further details concerning France’s ideas, please see the Fouchet Plan and for further details on the Europe of
states’, please see the Pleven Plan and the Five Member States’ Plan in the European Parliament. Selection of Texts
Concerning Institutional Matters of the Community from 1950-1982, 1982.
2
‘Final Communique of the Meeting of the Six heads of State and Government of the European Community Held
in Bonn on 18 July 1961’ The European Parliament. Selection of Texts Concerning Institutional Matters of the
Community from 1950-1982., 1982, p. 107.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
2
culture and wished to have close cultural co-operation; however, they did not intend
to develop cultural co-operation to be a cultural policy. In documents concerning
these two visions, the neutral term ‘cultural field’ was selected. Discourses on culture
in the 1960s mainly about co-operation between states.
The term ‘region’, circulating in the Community’s documents in the 1960,
were the Community’s internal territories which urgently needed development for
economic purposes. They were not yet considered as actors in the integration process.
As a policy, the regional issue was in the debates of the European Community
through the 1960s. However, it only represented the struggles of the European
Commission and the European Parliament for initiating regional policy at the
European level. The European Commission set up three parties in 1963 to carry out
studies on regional issues and problems. Later, it proposed a memorandum on
regional policy to the European Council in May 1965. According to the
memorandum, the Commission requested the European Council to reach an
agreement on the Community’s regional policy, including the aim and methods. The
European Parliament adopted a resolution on this memorandum, supporting the
Commission, as well as suggested the Council to set up a special fund for regional
development.3 In contrast, the European Council prolonged the creation of the fund. It
only supported the Commission’s proposal to reduce uneven economic in the Member
states by ‘ensure[ing] geographical distribution of industry, as proposed by the
Commission.
Subsequently,
the
Community financed
conversion
industrial
programmes without creating a fund for a regional policy. To explain this phenomena,
it very much concerned the disputes over the direction of the Community. The intergovernment approach dominated the Community, preventing it from having common
policy areas beyond the Member States’ interests.4
The situation changed when de Gaulle left French politics in 1969, The
prospect of the first enlargement, which was symbolized as a new step of the
integration process, was agreed by all of the Member States. Furthermore, the
Community demonstrated its optimistic view that,
3
‘Resolution Concerning the Commission’s Memorandum on Regional Policy in the EEC’ Bulletin of the
European Communities 8, 1966, p. 83-84.
4
In the 1960s, the common agricultural policy was the first priority for the Member States, in particular for
France, yet the negotitations among them were still going on.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
3
‘the Member States of the Community, the driving wheels of European
construction declare their intention of converting their entire relationship
into a European Union before the end of this decade (1970s)’5
However, a sudden global economic crisis such as the oil crisis and the dollar
collapse, which started at the early 1970s, jeopardized this plan, the grand plans for
political union written by Leo Tindemans6 and for monetary union by Werner
collapsed.7 Under these new circumstances, the concepts ‘culture’ and ‘region’ and
their significance for the Community came to a turning point.
Culture: the Community with or without a cultural policy
Uncertainty, which came with the global economic crisis, influenced the
Member States to strengthen its unity by using a discourse, ‘A European identity’
which was declared in the Copenhagen Summit in 1973. Culture was mentioned that,
‘defining the European identity involves: […] reviewing the common heritage […]
the diversity of cultures within the framework of common European civilization’.8
Even though culture was recognized as one of the important areas, the Community did
not develop as a main policy since it was not allowed by the Treaty of Rome.
However, the Community, in particular, the European Parliament and the European
Commission had struggled to launch its cultural activities before culture was
contained in the Treaty of Maastricht.
5
The European Communities. ‘The First Summit of Enlarge the Community, Declaration’ Bulletin of the
European Communities 10-1972, p. 16.
6
Leo Tindemans, a former Prime Minister of Belgium received a mandate from the European Council in the early
1970s to propose how a European Union should be. The report on European Union, well-known as the Tindemans
Report was on the agenda of the European Council for years. However, no progress and concrete action was taken
since in the 1970s the Member States were not willing to have further common policies or take any grand plans
due to the effects of the global economic recession.
7
Werner was assigned by the European Council to draw a report on a monetary union in 1970. The plan envisaged
that economic equilibrium was the important ground for the monetary union, thereby the Community should adopt
measures to solve structural problems.. Even though the plan attached much importance to regional policy, it was
not a main factor to influence the Community to take launch a regional policy. Like the Tindemans Report, the
Werner Plan was not implemented for the same reason.
8
The European Communities. ‘Declaration on European Identity’ Bulletin of the European Communities 12-1973,
p. 119.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
4
The European Parliament and the European Commission, however, held
different views over the Community and cultural policy. The European Parliament’s
visions concerning the Community and culture went farther than other institutions, it
had a desire to make a cultural dimension a part of the revision of the Treaty of Rome.
It asked the Commission to take a cultural policy into the Community’s competence.
In contrast, the European Commission’s way of dealing with the Community’s
cultural policy were using a strategy of denial, endeavoring to develop cultural actions
as only allowed by the Treaty of Rome, yet at the same time it protected itself of
launching a cultural policy by stressing over time that cultural action at the
Community level was only a cultural sector not a policy. Nevertheless, the European
Parliament and the European Commission agreed that as the Community could not
give financial supports to culture for cultural sake, it could do so by supporting
culture through its regional policy.
Region as a regional policy
In contrast to the 1960s, the problem of regional disparity was quickly
developed as a main policy for three reasons. The first enlargement was the main
reason. As a new member of the Community, Britain’s ambition to get a fair return
for its contribution to the Community’s budget was the most influential factor.
Besides, the uneven economic development within the Community, which was
broadened by the first enlargement was another factor. Lastly, thanks to the global
economic problems, the Community gave a priority to regional development so as to
prevent further economic disparities. Subsequently, the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), which became a center point of discussion on the EU’s
regional policy, was set up in 1975. Alongside ERDF, the Community operated its
regional policy with other two funds: the European Social Fund (ESF) and the
European Agricultural Guidance Fund (EAGGF).
Throughout the last three decades, the European Community struggled for
autonomy over its regional operation. From its early years to 1978, ERDF was
distributed to the Member States on the quota basis—Belgium 1.5%; Denmark 1.3%;
Ireland 65% plus a sum of six millions unit of account; Italy 40%; Luxembourg 0.1%;
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
5
the Netherlands 1.7%; Germany 6.4% and Britain 28%.’9 Apart from the quota
system, the way in which ERDF supported individual projects also implies that the
Community did not have power to design its own policy. The Community endeavored
to solve this problem, as seen in the 1979; 1984; 1989 reforms. The 1979 reform still
maintained the quota section, but introduced a non-quota section. Even though, the
non-quota section took only 5% from the total amount of ERDF, it contributed a
significant change—the increasing role of the Community, particularly, the European
Commission’s role in the fund meant that the Community could set up its own
regional development programmes since eligible areas had to meet the programme
requirements. The 1984 reform introduced a further distinction between the
Community’s and national programmes by defining two programmes: Community
programmes and national programmes of Community Interest (NPCI).
As a result of institutional reform in the Community and the international
changes since mid 1980s, the Community could gain more power over its regional
policy through the reform of the whole Structural Fund in 1989. This means that the
three fund, ERDF; ESF and EAGGF were reformed in the same time by establishing
five objectives as follows:
OBJECTIVES
FUNDS
OBJECTIVE 1:
EDRF+ESF+ EAGGF
‘Development and structural adjustment of the regions
whose development is lagging behind’
OBJECTIVE 2:
ERDF+ ESF
‘converting the regions or parts of regions seriously
affected by industrial decline’
OBJECTIVE 3:
ESF
‘Combating long-term employment’
OBJECTIVE 4:
ESF
‘Occupational integration of young people (less than 25
years of age)’
OBJECTIVE 5:
A.
‘Speeding
up
the
adjustment
of
agricultural
EAGGF
structures’
B.
‘Development of rural areas’*
ERDF+ ESF+EAGGF
Table 1: Objectives of the Structural Fund introduced by the 1989 reform
* Sources from: Commission of the European Communities. Community
9
The European Community. ‘Regulation (EEC) No. 724/75 of the Council of 18 March 1975 Establishing a
European Regional Development Fund’ Official Journal of the European Communities. OJ L 73, 21.3.75, p. 2.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
6
Structural Funds 1994-99 Regulations and Commentary. Luxembourg: Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1993.
Five objectives allowed the Community to have its own approach towards a
regional policy. Furthermore, there were other important details, which enabled the
Community to gain more influence on it regional policy. First and foremost, the 1989
reform introduced two principles, additionality and partnership. The principle of
additionality intensified the former rule that the Community’s regional fund was an
addition to national funds, not their substitute. The principle of partnership ‘involved
close collaboration between the Commission and all relevant authorities at national,
regional or local level’.10 Secondly, it provided the Community with a legal
competence to set new separate programmes of its own interest, namely ‘the
Community Support Framework’ and ‘the Community Initiatives’. The 1989 reform
had a great impact on the Community’s development. Firstly, the Community could
use measures to prevent the Member States from exploiting the Community fund to
substitute national funds. Secondly, the Community established a direct link with sub
nation through the principle of partnership.
The interplay between ‘regions’ and ‘cultures’:
discourses and policies
From 1975 to 1981, the Community did not have autonomy over its own
regional policy because of the fix quota system, decided by the Member States. The
Member States allocated the fund to projects in their countries. The Community set up
a broad guideline that the concentration areas eligible ERDF were regions with a
preponderance of agriculture; declining regions undergoing industrial change and
regions with structural underemployment. As the Commission planned to finance
infrastructure for regional development, the European Parliament proposed that in so
doing ‘the Fund should take account of the social and human factors of regional
development’.11 According to the Community annual report, ERDF was distributed to
10
Commission of the European Communities. Community Structural Fund 1994-99 Regulations and Commentary.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1993, p. 19.
11
The European Parliament. ‘Resolution on the Community Regional policy’ Official Journal of the European
Communities. OJ C 40, 8.4.74, p. 27.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
7
‘tourist infrastructure’ and ‘cultural infrastructure’. The number of cultural
infrastructure and financial amount from 1975 to 1981 are as follows:
YEAR
NUMBER OF PROJECTS
1975
AMOUNT OF BUDGET
13
1976
277.22 m. u.a*.
1977
59
500
m. u.a.
1978
42
581
m. u.a.
1979
35
945…. m. u.a.
1980
74
1,165
1981
49
1,540… m. u.a.
m. u.a.
*Million units of account
Sources from: Commission of the European Community. European Regional
Development Fund Annual Report, 1975-1981.
For the time being, culture is however only an insignificant factor to
reinforce regional development. Even though culture was mentioned as a source of a
European identity in 1973, the Community spent so much time on how to define its
cultural action. Its first effort came out in 1977, ‘Community action in cultural sector’.
The document reveals that culture was deemed as a tool to solve economic and social
problems. However, it did not obviously propose how the Community was going to
instrument culture. It only mentioned that cultural field would create more jobs. There
was no sign showing that the Commission wished to link culture with other policies,
in particular regional policy. Similarly, the Commission’s documents concerning
regional policy did not contain an awareness of the importance of culture and other
policies to the regional policy.
The real epoch of the interplay between ‘regions’ and ‘cultures’ began in
1982 when the Commission who was repeatedly urged by the European Parliament to
support culture, in particular architectural heritage proposed new possibilities to
finance conservation in its communication on cultural sector that,
‘ Article 130 of the EEC treaty states that the task of the European
Investment Bank shall be facilitate by means of loans the financing
of projects ‘for developing areas regions.[…] Projects ‘for
developing less developed regions’ appear more frequently they
sometimes fall into that category because they are a substantial part
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
8
of a programme to develop the tourist potential of a region, whose
economic and social development will benefit’12
Members of the European Parliament responded to this proposal by asking the
Commission to finance architectural heritage preservation through the Integrated
Mediterranean Programme.13 Later, the Community made it clear in the 1984 reform
that the Community would support culture and cultural heritage only if these
programes aimed at promoting regional tourism.14
The major factor, which brought about the interplay between regions and
cultures can be explained in the broader context of the Community. First of all, there
were institutional reform demands from various actors, which gave influential inputs
to activate the Community’s institutions, including the Member States to accelerate
the integration process towards a European Union. This going on process influenced
the Commission to revise its policies. Secondly, the Community later was confronted
with severe legitimacy crisis since the outcome of the second direct election to the
European Parliament in 1984 was lower than the one in 1979. The election outcome
was opposite to the Community’s estimation, the Euro-barometre had estimated that
the turn out of the 1984 election would have been slightly higher than in 1979, 64%
against 62%. However, the turnout of the 1984 election was only 60%. The
Community, by the European Council evaluated that the Community was a remote
bureaucratic for its people.15 It had a profound impact on the Community’s
12
European Communities. Stronger Community Action in the Cultural Sector. Bulletin of the European
Communities Supplement 6/82, p. 13.
13
-Please see further details concerning the European Parliament’s opinion on this issue, including proposal by
Members of the parliament in, the European Parliament. Report Drawn up on Behalf of the Committee on Youth,
Culture, Education, Information and Sport on the Conservation of the Community’s Architectural and
archaeological Heritage. Document A2-192/88.
- As the result of the second enlargement, The Integrated Mediterranean Programme was set up in 1985 (the
Council regulation No. 2088/85 of 23 July 1985). It aimed at promoting development in rural areas in France;
Greece and Italy. It was the first time that the Community changed it regional development strategy which mainly
supported infrastructure to develop region by using an integrated approach.
14
The European Communities. ‘Annex: List of Categories of Infrastructure Which the Fund May not Assist’in
‘Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1787/84 of June 1984 on the European Regional Development Fund’ Official
Journal of the European Communities’ OJ L 169, 28.6.84.
15
The European Parliament. ‘European Council of Fontainebleau. Statement by the President in Office of the
European Council’ Debates of the European Parliament Report of Proceedings from 24 to 27 July 1984.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
9
institutions, reckoning on how to promote and construct the Community as a new
polity making.
Not long after, the Community, by the Commission led by Delors proposed
the 1992 plan, to accelerate the integration process. Before the 1992 plan, the
Community had already changed its cultural strategy. Culture, symbols16 and
discourses became major concerns for the construction of the Community, as
proposed by the committee on People’s Europe.17 It was then quickly taken into the
Community agenda by Delors-- a plan to promote a European cultural area was drawn
in relation to the completion of the single market. Simultaneously, the Community
gained more autonomy over its regional policy in 1989.
In order to solve the democratic deficit problems and to deepen the single
market, the Community used the interplay between regions and cultures both in its
discourses and policies. For discourse shaping, the Community tried to construct the
Community with the slogan ‘an ever closer union among peoples’which indeed was
not new. It was in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome, which was brought up by
various documents concerning a European Union. Due to the legitimacy crisis, the
Community used it to legitimize the promotion of ‘Europe’. In the light of this
process, ‘Europe’ was attached with several concepts, i.e., a ‘People’s Europe’; a
‘Europe of cultures’ and a ‘Europe of regions’.
A ‘People’s Europe’ was introduced so as to erase the perception of technocrat
Europe, a Europe of political leaders and civil servants in Brussels whose action was
not transparent, and substituted with a new perception, a ‘Europe’ which played a key
role in people’s daily lives. ‘People’s Europe’ provided its people with special rights,
i.e., political rights at the European level; freedom of movement, work and settlement
freely and etc. When the Treaty of Maastricht mentioned citizenship, the Community
altered ‘a People’s Europe to ‘a citizen’s Europe’.18 In order to propagate ‘a People’s
Europe’, the Community instrumented culture and history to create ‘Europe’ and
16
Symbols were recognized by the European Council and the committee on People’s Europe as an important
consciousness raising—examples of these symbols are: the Community flag; the Community anthem; European
passport; postage stamps; announcing European Commemoration days; custom signs; European sport events an
etc. For further details on the Community’s symbolic using, please see Shore, Cris. Building Europe: the Cultural
Politics of European Integration. London: Routledge, 2000
17
The as hoc committee on People’s Europe was set up by the European Council in the Fontainebleau meeting in
1984 because of the legitimacy crisis.
18
Please see: Fontaine, Pascal. A Citizen’s Europe. Brussels: the European Commission, 1993.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
10
raised sense of belonging—the Community tried to produced text books on European
history. Besides, it endeavored to set up the Community’s archives, supporting
research on the Community and launching a programme called a ‘European
dimension in school’. The purpose was:
‘[I]ntroducing the European dimension in schools is precisely to make the
young generations aware that the European Community exists, is developing
and takes a range of decisions which influence their lives now and will
determine their future’.19
‘A Europe of cultures’ differed from the slogan ‘a People’s Europe’ in that it
was promoted as an idea. As far as the Maastricht crisis was concerned, ‘A Europe of
cultures’ was promoted for example in a Community’s video, entitled ‘The Treaty of
Maastricht’. It ensured European public that further integration process meant
promoting diversity of cultures, which implied the respect of the Member States’
cultures. Indeed, ‘Europe of cultures’ had been a dominant idea among the
Community’s institutions before the Treaty of Maastricht. At the end of 1979, the
European Parliament had the idea that, ‘the culture of our continent, in its richness
and diversity, constitutes an essential element of European identity and helps to make
a reality of building of Europe for the citizens of its Member States’.20 Again in 1989,
this idea was stressed that, ‘the essence of Europe is its diversity,…any commitment
to culture will have to involve making the most of all aspects of this diversity, thereby
turning Europe culture in a culture of cultures by creating the most fertile
environment possible’.21After the Maastricht Treaty, it was mentioned that, ‘the
diversity of cultures is one of the Community’s greatest riches and whereas, for this
reason, it must be preserved and strengthened’.22 ‘A Europe of cultures’ was
compatible with ‘a People’s Europe’ in that it legitimized a Europe of diversity.
19
The European Communities. ‘Resolution of the European Parliament on the European Dimension in Schools’
Official Journal of the European Communities. OJ C. 345, 21.12. 87, p. 213.
20
The European Communities. ‘Resolution Embodying the Opinion of the European Parliament on the
Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council Concerning Community
Action in the Cultural Sector’. Official Journal of the European Communities. OJ C 39, 12.2.79, p. 50.
21
The European Communities. ‘Resolution of the European Parliament on a Fresh Boost for Community Action in
the Cultural Sector’ Official Journal of the European Communities. OJ C. 69, 20.3.89, p. 183.
22
The European Communities. ‘Resolution on the Commission Communication Entitled ‘New Prospects for the
Community Cultural Action’ Official Journal of the European Communities. OJ C. 42, 15.2.93, p. 174.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
11
‘A Europe of regions’ was seemingly the outcome of the Community’s new
regional policy strategy. The European Parliament nevertheless conceptualized the
Commission’s ambition towards the Community regional policy and encouraged that,
‘calls on the Commission, with a view to introduction of Europe of the Regions, to
strengthen its direct and other links with regions’.23 ‘A Europe of regions’ was based
on the partnership principle, introduced by the reform of the structural fund. The
Commission deemed that the increasing amount of budget paid for all structural
operation ‘prov[ed] that the partnership built up with the regions and the Member
States [was] a method that work[ed]’.24 For the Community, promoting ‘a Europe of
region’ through the partnership principle would bring not about economic results for
the single market. Regions were seen as active actors in activating their own
development by presenting their location attractions, [to] ensure[…] that potential
investor are made to feel welcome in the areas’ and promote ‘their development by
establishing and deepening contacts with other parts of Europe’.25
These discourses created two phenomena: the imagined ‘Europe’ and the rise
of regions. The Community’s space had never existed before —its space was only
assumed on the Member States’ boundaries. Within each Member State, space was
also divided into different regions, which had their own cultures and histories, and
had close links with each nation. The Community nevertheless for the first time
created its space in discourses by trying to attach meaning to ‘Europe’ as a
Community, which consisted of key elements such as people, cultures and regions.
Cultures and regions constitute the idea that theCommunity was based on diversity in
a unity. The new kind of regions was created in the Community discourses, differing
from the existing regionalism in Europe. Regions were given more importance as
main actors in European politics. They were placed in a more competitive
environment—they had to develop themselves politically and economically so as to
be a part of ‘Europe’.
23
The European Communities. ‘Resolution on the Commission’ s Annual Report on the Implementation of the
Reform of the Structural Fund’ Official Journal of the European Communities. OJ C. 284, 2.11.94, p. 69.
24
Commission of the European Communities. From the Single Act to Maastricht and Beyond. The Means to
Match Our Ambitions. COM (92) 2000 final, 11 February 1992, p. 9.
25
Commission of the European Communities. Europe 2000 Outlook for the Development of the Community
Territory. Com (91) 452 final, 7 November 1991, p. 15.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
12
The Community made this kind of imagination to be real through its regional
policy. Since the Community regional policy from 1989 promoted the principle of
partnership, regions became new actors in the Community. The Community’s
regional policy, as claims by Perry Anderson, is one of the contributions ‘to the rise of
region as a point of political identification across Western Europe’.26Just as the
Community’s financial instrument for the regional policy was amounted more than
half of its budget, it contributed a highly competitive system to regional development
in the Member States. Even more, the operation of regional policy over time has
shaped the Community’s structure—it has created a new kind of network system,
establishing a direct link between sub-nation, regions and the Community. Scholars27
argue that it had a profound impact on the Community—the Community policy
making is no longer constrained by only the Member States’ European policies and
national interests. Instead, the Community becomes the so-called multi-level
governance proceeded by the co-existence and interaction of different actors: the
Community, the Member States and regions.
The community became a contested polity of nations and regions. The
Member States sought be in this new kind of polity. The Community’s maps for its
regional policy are good examples to show how the Community succeeded in using
symbol and regional policy. At the outset, the Community did not even have its own
regional development maps, it used the Member States maps. Later, it drew its own
maps which showed boundaries of the Community in which the Member States
sought a place in these maps in order to obtain more regional funding from the
Community. Likewise, regions saw the Community as a new polity for both economic
and political reasons. They found more funding and a new political right—the
Community set up the Committee of regions, which was welcomed by regions as an
official political right at the European level, significant regional leaders were selected
26
Anderson, Perry. The Invention of Region 1945-1990. EUI Working Paper No. 94/2, European University
Institute, Florence, 1994, p. 10.
27
For examples: Marks, Gary. ‘Structural Policy in the European Community’ in Sbragia (ed) Europolitics:
Institutions and Policy Making in the New European Community.Washington: Brooking Institution, 1992, p. 191224; Marks, Gary and Liesbet, Hooghe. Multi Level Governnace and European Integration. Rowman&Littlefield
Publishers, 2000, and Marks, Gary. ‘Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC’ in Carfruny, A W.
and Rosenthal G. (eds). The State of the European Community Vol. 2. The Maastricht Debates and Beyond.
London: Lynne Rienner, p. 391-410.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
13
to participate in this committee, even though they were over qualified for the tasks of
the committee.
Cultural policy applied to the Community’s regional policy had impacts on the
Community in two ways. Firstly, it brought about economic development in regions
where jobs were increased and local business profited from cultural activities and
cultural attraction. The Community confirmed this assumption in one of its
documents that
‘Culture is not only a means of maintaining or strengthening
a distinctive identity, it is also a source of economic activity and new jobs.
This explains why the Structural Funds’ are the main source of Community
funding for cultural projects. Between 1989 and 1993, it is estimated that
about ECU 400 million was allocated to projects clearly identified as being
of a cultural nature. These projects are meant to help create or safeguard
jobs, and to stimulate local and regional economies’.28
Secondly, as far as regions saw the Community as a new main source of
funding, cultural policy, as proposed by Melissa Pantel, ‘has helped to reinforce the
idea that the EU constitutes an appropriate framework for contestation’.29 The
phenomena clearly began in 1989 and it was intensified in 1992 when culture was
made part of the Treaty of Maastricht. Beside, the Treaty said that ‘ the Community
shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provision of its
Treaty’.30 It corresponded with an awareness of people working in cultural field.
A handbook, called ‘More Breads and Circuses’ published by the Art Council in
England (1994), revealed all of the Community funding for cultural activities,
suggesting that the Structural Fund was a main source of funding for cultural
activities. Just as this argument can be tested by selecting a case study, a brief
discussion on Temple Bar serves for this purpose.
28
European Commission. Investing in Culture: an Asset for All Regions. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, 1998, p. 4.
29
Pantel, Melissa. ‘Unity-in-Diversity: Cultural Policy and EU Legitimacy’ in Banchoff, Thomas and Smith,
Mitchell (eds). Legitimacy and the European Union. The Contested Polity. London: Routledge, 1999, p. 57.
30
Council of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities. Treaty on European
Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1992, p. 49.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
14
An example of the interplay between ‘regions’ and ‘cultures’:
why Temple Bar?
In the Community regional development programmes, culture, in particular,
architectural heritage plays a seminal role in regional development since it is a built
environment which can be a tourist attraction and can be refurbished for present use
such as converting them to be cultural centers; museums and etc. In this part, I discuss
why Temple Bar is selected to be an example of the Community’s way of using the
interplay between ‘regions’ and ‘cultures’ to build 'Europe’.
Temple Bar is an area in the heart of Dublin, which was named after Sir
William Temple whose residence was located adjacent to the area in 17th century. It
used to be a trade center of Dublin, yet from the 1950s onwards, it began to decline as
business moved elsewhere. As the area had a serious urban decline problem, it
became an unsafe part of the city center and people moved out to the suburb areas of
Dublin. However, the European Community’s regional policy played a key role in
activating the development of Temple Bar. From 1991 to 1995, the urban renewal
programme in Temple Bar was financed by the European Regional Development
Fund, amounted 47 millions ECU.
The Temple Bar renewal project was very much characterized by the power of
architecture. The architectural plan was the strong point of the Temple Bar project. A
national architectural competition was announced. In the wining plan, architectural
heritage in the area, which varied from the 17th century to the 20th century was
preserved and refurbished, while new buildings were designed to fit in with the old
ones. The harmony of old and new architecture created a built environment and a
space for urban living. Nowadays, these new designed buildings became significant
architectural heritage of Dublin because their genuine architectural language and
functions were announced by different international organizations as important
architecture of the 20 century.
Cultural aspect was also another key factor in the Temple Bar project. Six
cultural projects, such as the Irish Film Center; the Project Art House etc were planed
to provide the area with cultural activities. All of them were housed in both old and
new buildings. As development strategies, all of them were exploited to attract
financial support from the Community for reasons that they would stimulate local
business and would create more jobs.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
15
The Temple Bar case demonstrates not only how and why the European
Community ways of using the interplay between ‘regions’ and ‘cultures’ work, but
also discerns national and regional perspectives and reaction towards the Community
policies. As explained before, the Community gained more autonomy over its
regional policy in 1989, and it resulted in the creation of a programme, called ‘the
Community Initiatives which allowed the Community to design its own programmes
when it considered that there were important issues to tackle. URBAN, one of the
Community Initiatives, was launched by the Commission in 1989 as an experimental
programme and was then officially created in 1994. It concerned with ‘the launch of
new economic activities; the promotion of local employment; the renewal of social,
health and personal security facilities; improvements of environmental infrastructure;
promote equal opportunities; combating long term unemployment; [promote] the
urban environment’.31 Due to the fact that, Temple Bar was financed under this
programme, it is a rational case to reveal how the Community constructed the
Community when it had an autonomy over its regional policy. As I proposed earlier
that the Community’s structure changed along with its regional policy development,
the structure and nature of the Community as multi-level governance will be seen in
the creation and the operation of URBAN. Various actors at the Community, national
and regional levels participated in this programme. At the Community level, URBAN
was an outcome of dialogues between the European Parliament and the European
Commission. At the national and regional level, it demonstrates different strategies of
regions towards urban problems.
Moreover, Temple Bar shows how the Community instrumented culture to
reinforce its structure as the contested polity. At the outset, Temple Bar was linked
with the Community’s cultural policy. Dublin was selected to be the 1991 European
Capital City of Culture32 in 1987. Temple Bar project became a flagship of this
programme. Since the European Capital City of Culture programme allowed the
designated city to seek more funding from other institutions of the Community, the
Irish Government exploited this rule to apply for financial support from URBAN. Not
only a cultural programme like the ‘European Capital City of Culture was designed to
31
Commission of the European Communities. Guide to the Community Initiatives Vol 2. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publication of the European Communities, 1998, p. 25.
32
The European Capital City of Culture was set up by the European Council in 1984. The reason behind lied in the
legitimacy crisis in 1984,as mentioned before.
M. Jewachinda
The Interplay Between ‘Regions’ and ‘C ultures’
16
encourage the Member States and regions to look for the Community funding, but
also URBAN, as a prgramme, was opened for them to propose long term urban
development programmes with cultural aspects. The Member States and regions were
placed in a higher competitive environment, their plans had to be appealing, highly
potential and significantly creative. Culture became a main instrument to color these
plans.
Temple Bar mirrors how the Irish Government and local people responded to
the Community’s approach. The whole Ireland was categorized by the 1989 reform to
be eligible for the Objective 1. It meant that according to the Community’s regional
policy, Ireland was a single region of ‘Europe’. Interestingly, Ireland welcomed two
statuses: being a single country and a region of ‘Europe’. Ireland, a country haunted
by its history, which is characterized by the search for independence from the shadow
of Britain, found that it could overcome these feelings by identifying itself with
‘Europe’. Besides, its national complex as a small country located outside mainland
Europe and having a lower national income than other Member States influenced
Ireland to look for the Community as an economic and a political solutions.
The story of Temple Bar confirms this point. Architectural heritage in Temple
Bar was in danger in the 1980s since the Dublin Corporation who had bought many
buildings in this area planed to demolish all of them to construct a new bus station. It
was a hot issue in Dublin. At that time, Dubliners were more aware of the city planing
because of the increasing sense of the city owners. Thus, they protested the plan. The
conflict was even bigger when it became obvious that a politician, Skelly, benefited
from a Canadian construction company which was expected to build the bus station.
Skelly strongly supported the bus station plan and negotiated with Government to
continue the plan with getting his voting support in return. Local people and mass
media protested by exploiting the issue of architectural heritage protection in the area
as a weapon. Besides, they endeavored to seek a support from the European
Commission to stop the bus station plan. Later, the Government solved this problem
by using the Community’s programme, the European Capital City of Culture as a
symbol to solve the conflict and using the regional funding, URBAN as a constructive
alternative way.