Italian cultural policy: conclusions for Russia

The article analyses current public management and funding practices of cultural organisations in Italy by using comparative and statistical analysis. The structure of the sector’s governing bodies and approaches to budgeting for culture at national level have been explored. Trends in decreasing funding from provincial, regional and local budgets have been identified. The status, legislative and institutional conditions for the emergence of Italy’s unique multichannel cultural financing system have been described. An analysis of the Italian museum system’s reform has been presented. The activities of private opera foundations have been discussed in detail. The main similarities between Russian and Italian cultural policies have been described. These are the drive to expand the boundaries and activities associated with the cultural sector, the significant burden on local and regional authorities in the field of cultural heritage preservation, the “quantitative approach” and the application of financial performance indicators to assess cultural organisations performance.
The article’s scientific novelty lies in the complex approach to the study of Italian cultural policy using the criteria proposed by D. Montias and A. I. Glagolev, and in the study of the activities of Italian opera foundations and museums, which had not previously been sufficiently covered in the Russian and foreign literature. The prospect of the topic, the practical significance and relevance of the research are due to the need to implement regulations in Russia which set a course for the creation of a multi-channel system of funding and a broad understanding of the cultural sector, and ensuring inter-agency and inter-regional cooperation between the authorities in the implementation of cultural policy.
The article analyses a wide range of financial support mechanisms for culture, most of which are named in the “Strategy of State Cultural Policy of Russia as Targets by 2030”, while Italy has accumulated considerable experience in this area for several decades.

1. Abankina T.V. (2014), “Models of state support for culture: theoretical grounds and financial instruments”, Journal of the New Economic Association, no. 4 (24), pp. 185–189. (In Russian).

2. Abankina T.V. (2016), “Models for arts and culture financial support”, Journal of US-China Public Administration, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 173–180. https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6591/2016.03.004

3. Baumol, W.J., and Bowen W.G. (1966), Performing arts: The economic dilemma, Twentieth Century Fund, New York, USA.

4. Belfiore E. (2009), “The methodological challenge of crossnational research: a comparison of cultural policy in Britain and Italy”, The Journal of Social Policy Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 89–116. (In Russian).

5. Bodo C., and Bodo S. (2016), Country profile Italy. Compendium cultural policies and trends in Europe, edited by Council of Europe, Council of Europe, Ericarts, Bruxelles, Belgium.

6. Chartrand H.H., and McCaughey C. (1989), “The arm’s length principle and the arts: An international perspective”, In: Who Pays for the Arts? The International Search for Models of Arts Support, M.C. Cummings, J. M. D. Schuster (eds), American Council for Arts, New York, USA, pp. 43–80.

7. De Witte K., and Geys B. (2011), “Evaluating efficient public good provision: Theory and evidence from a generalized conditional efficiency model for public libraries”, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2010.12.002

8. Dragichevich-Sheshich M., and Stoykovich B. (2000), Culture: management, animation, marketing, Tigra Publishing House, Novosibirsk, Russia, pp. 26–31. (In Russian).

9. Glagolev A.I. (1991), Economic relations in artistic culture, vol. I. Western experience, All-Russian Research Institute of Art Studies of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR, Rotaprint, Moscow, USSR. (In Russian).

10. Hatri G.P. (2005), Performance measurement: getting results, The Institute for Urban Economics Foundation, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

11. Khaunina E.A., and Tsyba A.A. (2014), “Organizational and economic features of theatrical activity in Italy”, Cultural Notes. Issue 16: Cultural Policy – 2014. Problems and Prospects. Collection of Articles, responsible editor G.M. Yusupova, State Institute of Art Studies, Moscow, Russia, pp. 139–165. (In Russian).

12. Khaunina E.A. (2018), “12 channels of heritage funding. Foreign experience: a palette of methods”, Scientific and Practical Journal “Protected by the State”, no. 2, pp. 29–33. (In Russian).

13. Khaunina E.A. (2019), Cultural heritage, Cultural activity in the context. Economic theory, institutional means, sociological measurements: collective monograph, edited by A.Ya. Rubinshtein, Aleteiya, St. Petersburg, Russia, рp. 240–276. (In Russian).

14. Montias J. (1986), Public support for the performing arts in Europe and the United States, Non-Profit Enterprise in the Arts. Studies in Mission and Constraint, New York, USA, pp. 287–319.

15. Moretti A. (2014), The system of cultural and historical heritage in Italy. Museum financing and management system, Presentation at the seminar-conference at the University of Bocconi (Milan) for employees of the Ministry ofCulture of the Russian Federation, March 31 – April 4, 2014, translated from Italian, 11 p. (In Russian).

16. Muzychuk V.Yu. (2019), “Cultural policy of the state”, Cultural activity in the context. Economic theory, institutional means, sociological measurements: collective monograph, edited byA.Ya. Rubinshtein, Aleteiya, St. Petersburg, Russia, рp. 144–181. (In Russian).

17. Muzychuk V.Yu. (2020), “Cultural mandate of local governance: running in place”, Federalism, vol. 25, no. 4 (100), pp. 90–106. https://doi.org/10.21686/2073-1051-2020-4-90-106. (In Russian).

18. Shashkova A.V. (2018). “Italian territorial division problems”, Socio-Political Sciences, no. 1, pp. 37–39. (In Russian).

19. Synthony R. (2014), “The reform of Theater Support Fund”, Materials at a seminar-conference at Bocconi University (Milan) for employees of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, March 31 – April 4, 2014, 15 p. (In Russian).

20. Teti E., and Sacco P.L. (2011), “The financial sustainability of culture. The case of the Italian theatrical institutions” [“La sostenibilità fi nanziaria della cultura. Il caso delle istituzioni teatrali italiane”], Journal of The Department of Cultural Heritage University of Macerata [Il Capitale Culturale Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage], vol. 2, pp. 179–195. (In Italian). https://doi.org/10.13138/2039-2362/106

21. Throsby D. (1996), “Economic circumstances of the performing artist: Baumol and Bowen thirty years on”, Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 20, no. 3, Special Issue: The 30th Anniversary of “The Performing Arts: An Economic Dilemma” by Baumol and Bowen, pp. 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153849

22. Throsby D., and Withers G. (1979), The economics of the performing arts. Edward Arnold, St.Martin’s Press, First Edition, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108368445.010

23. Trupiano G. (2015), “Introduction to the finance of culture” [“Introduzione alla finanza della cultura”], The finance of culture: spending, financing and taxation [La finanza della cultura: LaSpesa, il Finanziamento e la Tassazione], Research Center on the Economics of Institutions [Centro di Ricerca sull’Economia delle Istituzioni (CREI)], Roma, Italy, pp. 5–24. (In Italian).

24. Wahl-Zieger E. (1980), “The performing arts and the market: Anglo-American and German approaches to theatre and orchestra in market economics”, Economic Policy for the Arts, pp. 224–234.

25. Zaslavsky G.A., Ivanov O.V., and Chernov A.G. (2018), “Census of Russian theaters: research approach and main results”, Theater. Fine Arts. Cinema. Music, no. 3, pp. 131–151. (In Russian).

26. Zelentsova E., and Gladkih N. (2021), Сreative industries: theory and practice, T8RUGRAM, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).