Editorial

In devoting this issue to cultural policy, MUSEUM International resumes a theme

that has already been addressed on several occasions in the course of the journal’s

lengthy existence.1 And with reason. The missions of museums are part of a political

framework that ensures their social pertinence. The development of museums is the

direct result of their ability to respond to the issues that are produced by societies in

evolution. Returning to this theme at regular intervals in order to provide a perspective

of the question is therefore both necessary and normal on behalf of an international,

institutional journal.

At the same time, MUSEUM International hereby continues a policy of close

collaboration with the International Council of Museums and the members of its

executive committee, aiming to ensure a greater synergy between the professional and

the political community at the international level. It is therefore also normal for

MUSEUM International to have entrusted the editorship of this issue to Nancy Hushion,

a member of ICOM’s Executive Council with a twofold expertise in both the public

and private sectors. Thanks to the knowledge and skill of its guest editor, the issue

provides an accurate and powerful image of the changing international landscape of

cultural policies.

Isabelle Vinson

At first glance, and read from museums’ traditionally more conservative

perspective, the relationship between the two terms ‘museums’ and

‘cultural policy’ is not immediately apparent. MUSEUM International’s

exploration of such links, plus exploring whether such connections should

be proactive or reactive, are at the core of this issue of the journal.

The development and implementation of cultural policy is the purview of

governments, be they federal, state or municipal, or any one of the many other forms of

public authority that exist throughout the world. Museums are typically seen as the

4 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 232 (Vol. 58, No. 4, 2006) ª UNESCO 2006

Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)

beneficiaries of such policies and while in some instances, they or their representative

organizations may be consulted in the developmental stages, they have rarely been

active players throughout.

The past decade, and perhaps even the past five years, have witnessed

substantive changes in the interaction between three spheres: cultural policy, museums

and the public. It can be argued that some governments have seen (and even used)

cultural policy to encourage a far greater rapprochement between museums and

their publics, while in other instances, the linking of public interest and museum

programming has evolved naturally through the work of highly committed staff, in the

absence of such framing documents.

As museums continue to expand their involvement with their communities,

both geographical and cultural, searching out and responding to opportunities for

closer collaboration in the development of cultural policy becomes imperative.

Museums have become increasingly strategic in their thinking and in their actions,

as longer term planning gains greater importance. An additional consideration for

many countries is the increasingly rapid changes in elected government, which

may result in substantial shifts in the priority to be afforded to the heritage and

cultural sectors. Cultural policy is a tangible indication of a government’s strategic

priorities and the philosophical base upon which it/they will structure future

funding. Surely this is not an area for museums to sit back and wait to see what

the outcome might be.

Working to acquire even an informal global perspective on the current and

future directions in this area for MUSUM International has been highly informative.

As is evident in the articles, there are almost as many approaches as there are countries.

Some countries have intentionally avoided the development of cultural policy;

others develop programs to stimulate the growth and development of museums that

can fit as is and fairly well under the umbrella of cultural policy. There are examples of

cultural policy being used as the trigger for the construction of new, often national,

museums; and an additional grouping that have specifically set out to establish their

strategic principles through cultural policy, and then work closely with museums and

heritage institutions to facilitate their implementation.

It is interesting to note how many of the cultural policies, tangible or implied,

are grounded in the need to articulate and secure funding for the museum sector. In

many instances, first principles are assumed. There are, however, several instances

Editorial

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 232 (Vol. 58, No. 4, 2006) 5

outlined in this issue where the policy and the museum are intertwined so that,

ultimately, both become very positive reflections of the other.

An additional assumption might be that museums need only be concerned with

those cultural policies that have the potential for direct impact on museums. This

perspective is rapidly changing as many museums look outward to the much broader

social environment and firmly take their place within it.

Or to pose the question differently, as does one of the articles: Are museums

targets or instruments of public policy?

Nancy Hushion

NOTE

1. See particularly Volumes XXV, No. 3, 1973, XXXIV, No. 2, 1982 and L, No. 3, 1998. These issues are available in their

entirety on the website of the journal’s digital archives: http://www.unesco.org/culture/museumjournal/. In order to access

all articles dealing with cultural policies since 1948, type ‘cultural policy’ in the ‘Basic Search’ window of the ‘Archives’ site

of MUSEUM International.

Editorial

6 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)