Underlying Problem

According to Neves (2021), the first explicit (Ahearne, 2009) mention of cultural democracy in a central government document in Portugal appears in the Strategic Plan of the National Plan for the Arts (PNA) (Vale et al., 2019). Until then, cultural democratisation was the only explicit paradigm of the government, in line with the Portuguese Constitution. The transition from cultural democratisation to cultural democracy within this context indicates a shift in the conceptualisation and operation of cultural policies, as exemplified by the design of the Social Impact Commitment of Cultural Organisations (CISOC), a measure within the Cultural Policy axis of that Strategic Plan. CISOC aims to foster cultural citizenship and enhance the full exercise of citizens’ cultural rights, positioning them as agents and protagonists. Therefore, it addresses some of the challenges identified by cultural democracy (Camacho et al., 2023). Santerre (2000) and Belfiore et al. (2023) note an interdependence between cultural democratisation and cultural democracy, with a recent shift towards the latter, underscoring the dynamism of cultural policy.

Research Question

This paper examines the content of CISOC’s created instruments within the context of coexisting paradigms of cultural democratisation and cultural democracy in Portugal. It investigates the relationship between these paradigms in policy design, particularly how their rationales (Schneider & Ingram, 1997; Schneider & Sidney, 2009) influenced the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the CISOC. Our research question explores the integration of cultural democracy principles into the CISOC’s instruments. Specifically, we ask: How were the principles of cultural democracy incorporated into the design of the CISOC, and how were these principles subsequently translated into its instruments?

Approach/Methods

The methodological approach of this study emphasises policy design as content (Howlett & Lejano, 2013; Siddiki & Curley, 2022), concerning the deliberate and normative activity in which policy elements are organised “to serve particular values, purposes, and interests” (Schneider & Ingram, 1997, p. 3). The study leverages ethnographic methods, including documentary review (analysis of official government, local authority, and political parties’ documents) and participant observation, to understand the CISOC’s elements and their logical structure.

Expected Findings

Results show that CISOC integrates principles from both cultural democratisation and cultural democracy paradigms. Initially conceptualised as a mechanism for creating social impact, the design process revealed shifts in terminology, commitments, and target beneficiaries. These modifications, moving from a contractual to a commitment-based approach, reflect a change towards principles of cultural democracy. Such principles emphasise transformative change, mutual accountability, and broadened beneficiary inclusivity. This shift suggests an integration of cultural democracy within Portugal’s cultural policy framework, contrasting with the previously dominant paradigm of cultural democratisation.

References

Ahearne, J. (2009). Cultural policy explicit and implicit: A distinction and some uses. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902746245

Belfiore, E., Hadley, S., Heidelberg, B. M., & Rosenstein, C. (2023). Cultural Democracy, Cultural Equity, and Cultural Policy: Perspectives from the UK and USA. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 53(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2023.2223537

Camacho, C. F., Fernandes, M. A., Maravalhas, F., Neves, J. S., Serra, F., Tomé, A., & Santos, J. (2023). Compromisso de Impacto Social das Organizações Culturais. Fundamentos, Metodologia e Instrumentos de Apoio. Plano Nacional das Artes.

Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459725

Neves, J. S. (2021). Políticas culturais de museus em Portugal: Ciclos e processos de reflexão estratégica participada. Midas, 13. https://doi.org/10.4000/midas.2956

Santerre, L. (2000). De la démocratisation de la culture à la démocratie culturelle. Em G. Bellavance, L. Santerre, & M. Boivin (Orgs.), Démocratisation de la culture ou démocratie culturelle? Deux logiques d’action publique (p. 47–63). Les éditions de l’IQRC.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Univ. Press of Kansas.

Schneider, A.L., & Sidney, M. (2009). What Is Next for Policy Design and Social Construction Theory?. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00298.x

Siddiki, S., & Curley, C. (2022). Conceptualising policy design in the policy process. Policy & Politics, 50. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16346727541396

Vale, P. P., Pólvora, N., Fernandes, M. A., & Albergaria, M. E. (2019). Plano Nacional das Artes: Uma estratégia, um manifesto 2019-2024. Plano Nacional das Artes.

One of the most prevalent policy instruments for democratic governments in the fight against discrimination are campaigns, which can be considered as a communication instrument. The aims of campaigns are diverse: They are able to raise awareness, they could facilitate the reporting of cases of discrimination, and they have the potential of informing the public about the existence of specific types of discrimination in society or the democratic institutions that have been established to combat them.

Information campaigns are meant to increase awareness about stereotypes or attitudes and stimulate behavioral change (Sutton et al., 2007), yet research into the effectiveness of campaigns is inconclusive about whether this goal is actually reached (McBride, 2015; Sutton et al., 2007). This paper will explore the process, output, and outcomes of anti-discrimination campaign. It will explore the factors that (potentially) determine their success or failure, and identify or suggest areas for improvement.

In recent years, evidence-based policy has become the object of massive critique. Some point to the underlying politics of seemingly neutral evidence practices (Cairney 2016; Parkhurst 2017). In the areas of health policy and welfare interventions, some argue that evidence from experimental studies and randomized controlled trials is extremely limited, ignores social contexts and structures, does not capture unintended consequences, and is influenced by large funding organizations (Deaton and Cartwright 2018). In anti-poverty programs and development policy, RCTs as ‘gold standard’ even seem to nourish both a methodological monoculture and a microfocus on individual behaviors (Straßheim 2018).

The paper first briefly discusses these potential problems and side-effects of evidence-based policies. The main part of the paper then focuses on the nexus between global health policies and climate change mitigation. It seems that at the intersection between these and other related policy areas (for example development, poverty, food) an especially rich landscape of policy expertise and advisory arrangements has emerged (see Strassheim 2023). So far, only few studies have mapped this landscape and compared the collaborative platforms providing expertise and policy advice at the climate-health nexus. Analyzing such nexus constellations at the global level, however, can improve our understanding of what happens under conditions where there is no single authoritative knowledge or governance institution and where highly divergent actors deal with the resulting epistemic and political uncertainties.

To deepen our understanding of alternatives to existing evidence-based policies and advisory practices, influential cases are compared. Among these are the Lancet Countdown monitoring the connections between climate change and public health, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the European Climate and Health Observatory. Specific coordination problems and tensions characterizing each of these expert arrangements are highlighted. The remainder of the paper concentrates on the challenges and possibilities of nurturing a plurality of expertise and evidence. Supporting such a politico-epistemic diversity in policy advice and evaluation could prevent the continuing spread of methodological and epistemic monocultures.

In an era characterized by evolving paradigms of marketization and managerialism, professionalism within the public sector, including in welfare services, is undergoing major transformations. However, there is an ongoing scholarly debate on the essence of these transformations. While some see it as the erosion of public professionalism and its subjugation to economic logic, others suggest that public professionalism is not merely replaced or marginalized, but rather it is undergoing a reconfiguration process, making it more hybrid in nature.

Recent research has provided a complex picture of instances of both de-professionalism and re-professionalism, strategies of resistance and coping by professional street-level workers, and complex power relations between managers and professionals. Yet, this literature predominantly concentrates on the organizational level, often overlooking the regulatory means that often accompany the marketization and managerialism of public services -- through legal, administrative and contractual mechanisms.

To address this gap, the current paper investigates the re-structuring of professionalism under the regulatory state. Through an in-depth case study of the procurement of social services in Israel, the paper explores whether and how professionalism is incorporated into the contracting process. The findings highlight the centrality of professionalism in the procuring process, with policymakers actively embracing professional concepts and language to regulate the services. At the same time, professionalism is undergoing transformations and adaptations, including the incorporation of hybrid elements. The paper delineates the characteristics of this regulatory reconfiguration of professionalism, discussing its dynamics and impact on the meaning of professionalism.