loading subjects...
Ebook: National Approaches to the Governance of Historical Heritage over Time. A Comparative Report
loading...
The five elements - governmental authorities, public discourse, corporate and market interests, citizens’ associations and international agencies – may help in figuring out the complex and challenging purpose of the research work presented in this volume which is nothing less than the history of the governance of cultural and natural heritage in eleven countries, from its outset to the present. Speaking about governance is challenging. The term has been vastly used and misused. But today, when the feverish popularity of the concept is probably in decline, we rest with one solid conviction at least: that social, economic, cultural and institutional processes are governed not only through government (be it national or local) with its legislative, administrative and jurisdictional mechanisms, but through a larger array of different actors and factors. These include schools and universities, citizens’ associations, public opinion, economic corporations, non-governmental organizations, learned societies, unions, media, international agencies, clubs, consultants etc. In fact, the reader is going to meet quite a few of these actors in this publication; they are the unavoidable characters involved in the story the authors have set out to tell.
On April 12 1882, “The Times” published a letter to the editor signed by the British Pre-Raphaelite painter, craftsman and writer, William Morris. Under the title “Vandalism in Italy” the letter denounced the “ignorant system of so called ‘restoration’” followed by the Italian government and local authorities in treating their country's “priceless relics of art in its various forms”. Speaking of several ancient churches ‘remodelled’ or even pulled down in Milan, Morris argued that
“the /State/ Commission for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments and the /local/ Academies of Fine Arts have been committing the worst acts of vandalism – a fact that makes it difficult or impossible for any private Italian to get a hearing when he protests /…/ as one link after another in the history of art is cut away to feed the vanity of some modern designer or the greed of some contractors eager for a job”.
Quote in Elisabetta COLOMBO, Come si governava Milano. Politiche pubbliche nel secondo Ottocento, Milano, Angeli, 2005, p. 116.
The episode testifies to the fact that if Italy is today the country with the highest number of sites included in the Unesco World Heritage List, it is not entirely the merit of its governments' preservation policies – and indeed it may well be in spite of those policies and of their ineptness.
But that episode is by far more telling, as it presents in essence many of the themes and issues addressed by this book. First and principally, it informs us about the existence in the late 19th century of governmental agencies, both national and local, entrusted with the preservation of cultural heritage properties. Secondly, that letter, making reference to those “priceless relics” as a “link” to history, echoed a discourse which has been crucial to the support and the design of preservation policies ever since. Thirdly, Morris evoked two permanent counterparts to those policies: the “modern designer” and the “contractor”, pictured – not surprisingly in the words of a Pre-Raphaelite – as entirely negative characters. Fourthly, the unheard “private” citizen is mentioned in the quotation: the ancestor of a host of individuals and associations, increasingly active in subsequent decades (when they certainly became more successful in gaining attention from the competent authorities and in encouraging discussions and initiatives about natural and cultural heritage). Lastly, that letter, sent to the editor of the most reputed British newspaper but relating to events taking place in Italy, bears evidence of the cosmopolitan concern raised by the issue of preservation over a century ago: the embryo of such international actions as the “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” promoted by Unesco ninety years later.
The five elements listed above – governmental authorities, public discourse, corporate and market interests, citizens' associations, international agencies – may help in figuring out the complex and challenging purpose of the research work presented in this volume which is nothing less than the history of the governance of cultural and natural heritage in eleven countries, from its outset to the present. Let me try to say briefly why the adjectives “complex” and “challenging” are not used here as an empty tribute to conventional rules observed in a preface.
Speaking about governance is challenging per se. The term has been vastly used and misused.
For a recent assessment on the use of the concept, see Tony BOVAIRD, Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society, in International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 71, 2005, pp. 217–228.
Writing on the history of the preservation policies is no less demanding. Indeed it was confusing at first. Cultural heritage has intrinsically to do with history; but the concept of what belongs to history, of what is worth including in the heritage of a region, of a nation, of humanity has been changing over time. Thus we had to trace a twofold history: the one concerning the changes that occurred in preservation policies; and the other concerning the changes that occurred in concepts of what needed be preserved – the two orders of changes being considerably intertwined. The history of institutional and societal arrangements, familiar to the administrative historian, had to be blended with other matters closer to a field like cultural studies.
Under such premises the comparative work that is distinctive to this study proved particularly laborious. Not only different governmental traditions had to be taken into account, but also different and sometimes multifarious cultural contexts had to be considered. The “heritage” to be protected could be natural or cultural (in as far as the two adjectives are dichotomous); it could be local or sub-national or international according to the history of the different countries – the “heritage” of the one often being a taboo event to the other. The comparative report that closes this volume draws the conclusions of a punctilious exercise undertaken at the very beginning of the research to establish the “what” and “how” of the comparison.
In having brought to conclusion such work, the Project Group may find some reason for satisfaction. The readers – whether academic, professional, or general – will decide if this satisfaction is grounded and to what extent. I believe however that they will easily acknowledge the wealth of information offered by the reports and the effort to frame that information into a reasonable interpretative fabric. For the rest, history must be praised for its extraordinary provision of models, suggestions, explanation, inspiration. In this light, public administration and management as practical enterprises and scientific fields cannot but rest upon a firm and precise knowledge of the past, if they do not want to fall prey to deceptive managerial fashions or false administrative gospels, if they do not want to play blind man's buff when they are trying to make sense of their tasks and resources.
The participation of all rapporteurs has been important; but Stefan Fisch, as general rapporteur, has played a special role: with his multidisciplinary scholarship and his mastery of different languages (that entails familiarity with different cultural heritages), he has provided the Project Group with leadership and guidance. Gail Darge, the IIAS Project Group Coordinator, has managed the Group skilfully and patiently: I am sure to express the opinion of each and every participant in the Project Group when I say that her task could not have been better accomplished.
This volume is the 9th “Cahiers d'Histoire de l'Administration”, published by the IIAS. The previous volumes were the product of a permanent Working Group on Administrative History, set up in 1982 and subsequently chaired by André Molitor (1982–1991), Louis Fougère (1991–1992), Vincent Wright (1993–1999) and myself. The Working Group has been internationally recognized as a laboratory on administrative history;
Vincent WRIGHT, Il gruppo di lavoro sulla “storia dell'amministrazione” dell'IISA, in Storia Amministrazione Costituzione, Bologna, il Mulino, 1995, pp. 311–314; Klaus-Gert LUTTERBECK, The “Cahiers d'Histoire de l'Administration” of the “International Institute of Administrative Sciences” in Brussels, in “Jahrbuch fuer Europaeische Verwaltungsgeschichte”, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2005, pp. 327–349.
Project Groups as ad hoc teams of scholars summoned to develop a specific subject replaced the permanent Working Group on Administrative History in 2005. That did not mark a discontinuity in the interest of the IIAS in this field of study. The ordinal number 9 written on the front page of this book indicates that the series of the Cahiers d'Histoire, initiated in 1984, will continue; as many as six volumes of the series have been published in a little more than a decade, from 1995 to 2007. In the meantime, some of the participants in the Project Group that produced this book also produced another book on the history of IIAS, on the occasion of its seventy-fifth anniversary; and a new Project Group is already at work on a new topic.
This is why, in the vein of the subject treated in this volume, I am encouraged to consider administrative history like a part of the cultural heritage of IIAS and – therefore – of the whole scholarly and professional community dealing with Public Administration (with and without capital letters). And I am confidant that administrative history as a ‘site’ of knowledge worthy of being protected will find in IIAS its Unesco.
The author sets the tone for the comparative study by explaining the framework for the project and using the country studies to highlight the following major themes developed: (I) Historical heritage as an object of public policies and public administration; (II) National and non-national heritage politics; (III) History and nature as objects of heritage politics; (IV) Types of administrative action to protect heritage protection; and (V) Governance of heritage: the organization of administrative action.
Argentina is a particular case in the history of Latin America. The author briefly reviews its complicated history, its heterogeneous demographics, the heritage of its artists and natural monuments as well as the profound policy contradictions that set it apart from the uniformity of other Latin American countries, but which also enriches the common heritage of the culture of Latin America.
As one of the younger democracies, the authors note that there is a general perception of Australia as a “cultural wasteland”, but they quickly counter this idea by examining the nature and means of government involvement in heritage management, noting that as a federal system, the level of government has been of significance as well as the influence of prominent individuals. In the historical overview presented the following aspects are examined: the aboriginal question and heritage; the colonial experience; Australia's rare and curious specimens in museums; the development of the performing arts after World War II; and natural heritage – including National Parks and Wildlife Service.
In a comparative approach of the management and valorisation of historical, artistic and cultural heritage, the case of Belgium is particularly interesting from three points of view: first, in the second quarter of the 19th century, the young State sought to establish its legitimacy, identity and boundaries; second, during this time Belgium underwent substantial industrialisation that strengthened the demographic density but degraded the countryside; lastly, in the middle of the 20ieth century, the unitary State was transformed into a federal State, comprised of three regions (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital) and three language-based Communities (Flemish Community, French Community and Germanophone Community). At the dawn of the 21st century, these different levels of power share the management and valorisation of historical, artistic and cultural heritage, but not always in a balanced, coherent way. In addition, at a time when new information and communication technologies are ever increasing, there are greater challenges for managers of archives and of heritage acquired from books. This is not just a situation specific to Belgium, but the small size of Belgium and its institutional complexity do not facilitate the definition and implementation of voluntarist policies.
From the time of Louis XIV whose motto could have been not only “I am the State” but also “I am the cultural State” to the present, the author delves into the complexities of cultural heritage in France. She also examines the administrative tribulations of heritage over time, the personalisation of administrative power with regard to heritage, the cost of protecting heritage, the specific kinds of expertise required to maintain heritage and the changing expectations regarding this subject – including innovations and deviations.
Beginning from the fragmented world of German States which organized administrative action to preserve historical heritage at the beginning of the 19th century, the author shows the development of the protection of historical monuments in Germany. In reality the subject of a coherent administrative organisation of heritage issues was not more successful in one German state than another. However reflection on the quality and status of monuments of the German-speaking world coincided with a marked professionalisation of the various historical heritage administrations. It was only with the Weimar Republic however that artistic and historical heritage of the country was seen as the responsibility of the State. After the devastation of cities and heritage resulting from World Word II, German decentralized State administrations took on the task of dealing with heritage issues; differing views and approaches to the subject have thus resulted.
As from 1833 the author develops the public policies and institutions involved in the preservation of heritage in Greece. The administration of cultural heritage in Greece is developed along three main lines that evolve over time: i) national identity, ii) sciences involved in the promotion of historical monuments and iii) the administrative concept (centralisation/decentralisation). These main divisions correspond to differing policies and reflect the inherent contradictions as well as the reasons for successes and failures in public policy.
In Italy, the beginning of protecting objects of artistic value dates back to very early times, following the tradition of ancient Roman law. An historical overview is then developed, in which the role of the Catholic Church, Papal legislation and humanist popes (15th century) is summarized as well as the management of art heritage up to the end of the 18th century. The author then introduces developments in the first half of the 19th century, notably influenced by the vicissitudes of the Napoleonic period, the inheritance of Papal legislation, and the controversy over individual ownership/State property of cultural heritage. Attention is given to the a absence of a general law in Italy after Unification (1861), problems linked to a definition of national heritage, the political issue of centralization/decentralization in the aftermath of Unification, and the difficulties of establishing and operating a central State structure. For example, the Italian Parliament only passed the first national act related to art heritage in 1902. Further analysis of the events of the twentieth century shows the importance of the Nation's art and historical heritage as being fundamental to the democratic structure. Lastly the conflict between the functions of the State and later “devolution” to federal governments and the limit of public intervention are discussed.
Crucial to the argument in this contribution is the idea that the history of the governance (including the administration) of national historical and cultural heritage in the Netherlands is very much dependent on the formation and (re)conceptualisation of a Dutch national identity. The notion of recasting or reformulating national identity through defining the appropriate historical and cultural artefacts has been essential for understanding the turns that administrative history has taken. The authors point out that this observation is as relevant for the 19th and early 20th centuries as it is today. Cultural heritage is constantly in flux as new minorities each bring different culture and heritage to an increasingly multicultural society; each trying to find a place in Dutch society. The new multiculturalism is not unlike what separated Catholics and Protestants in the 19th century. The authors conclude that the current uneasiness about what “identity” is in a multicultural society will in time be overcome. There is a need to understand that national identity and cultural heritage are policy concerns with great continuity, while its substance is and should always be subject to change.
Like so many other countries of the Mediterranean basin, Spain was for many centuries a poor country with a huge artistic, historical and natural heritage. The authors insist that both of these factors have been a main feature of the problems and dominant attitudes in Spain concerning heritage. For over two centuries starting from the end of the 18th century, the establishment of a special Public Administration for the conservation and management of historical heritage worked in a paradoxical context: successive advances – usually preceded by a stage of intense upheaval – led to the rejection of achievements during previous stages. During the Absolutist and Liberal eras, the administrative development of heritage protection followed French models, then later in the early 20th century other schools of thought influenced policy, especially German and Italian scientific ideas. Attention is also drawn to the political factors that seriously distorted the development of the administration for heritage conservation, namely nationalisms, regionalisms, localisms. The authors include examples from General Franco's era to the present influence and political pressure of the European Union.
The administration of English national heritage has been characterised by substantial institutional and legislative complexity and fragmentation, including the widespread development of partnerships of various kinds between government, on the one hand, and the private and voluntary sectors on the other, as well as a proliferation of NGOs and quasi-government organisations. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, a prominent part was played by ‘gentleman scholars’, collecting specimens and artefacts from around the world. Some of these collections subsequently formed the basis for national and local museums. Legal protection of ancient monuments began with legislation passed in 1882. The late 19th century also saw the first introduction of death duties, partly ameliorated by later initiatives to allow houses and works of art to be surrendered in lieu of death duties. As English national heritage is a vast, complex and amorphous subject, the author begins with a general conceptual and definitional overview, then describes the development of an administrative infrastructure (including both governmental and non-governmental bodies) for heritage. Attention is also drawn to the development of legislation and institutional arrangements for protecting historically important buildings and ancient monuments, thus highlighting the interplay between public and private interests. Finally the article examines some relevant fiscal issues, looking at rural heritage, with special reference to national parks, and concluding with a short case-study of the history of the British Museum.
The development of American historic heritage policy is surveyed with attention to changing conceptions of what constitutes the American heritage. The National Park Service's role in American preservation policy is examined. Federalism's impact on American preservation is characterized with particular attention to the centrality of local governments in the protection of historic sites. Finally, future challenges to American historical preservation are considered. The author notes that modern states seek to preserve their historical heritage, but what constitutes a “heritage” to be preserved varies across different societies and cultures. In conceptualizing its own historical heritage, a society interprets that distant and “foreign” past. The act of historical retrieval might seem a simple task for Americans, if only because their past is not so distant. However, the challenge in formulating historical heritage policy is not the recovery of the past; the challenge is in finding a narrative about national heritage as a normative guide to choosing what historical past is to be preserved and celebrated. In this volume, historic heritage policy formulation and implementation reveal a great deal about a political system's choices among available cultural values.
The reference framework for authors writing country papers for the historical heritage project.