International Journal of Cultural Policy

ISSN: 1028-6632 (Print) 1477-2833 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/gcul20

Cultural policies for sustainable development: four

strategic paths

Nancy Duxbury, Anita Kangas & Christiaan De Beukelaer

To cite this article: Nancy Duxbury, Anita Kangas & Christiaan De Beukelaer (2017) Cultural
policies for sustainable development: four strategic paths, International Journal of Cultural
Policy, 23:2, 214-230, DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2017.1280789

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1280789

Published online: 28 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25092

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcul20
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2017
VOL. 23, NO. 2, 214–230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1280789

Cultural policies for sustainable development: four strategic paths

Nancy Duxburya , Anita Kangasb and Christiaan De Beukelaerc
a
Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; bDepartment of Social Sciences and Philosophy,
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; cSchool of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations in Received 29 September 2016
2015, the role of culture is limited. We argue that culture’s absence is rooted Accepted 7 January 2017
in the longue durée of interplay among theoretical and policy debates on
KEYWORDS
culture in sustainable development and on cultural policy since the mid- Sustainable development;
twentieth century. In response to variations in concepts and frameworks cultural policy; cultural
used in advocacy, policy, and academia, we propose four roles cultural sustainability; culture and
policy can play towards sustainable development: first, to safeguard and sustainability; sustainable
sustain cultural practices and rights; second, to ‘green’ the operations and development goals; UNESCO
impacts of cultural organizations and industries; third, to raise awareness
and catalyse actions about sustainability and climate change; and fourth,
to foster ‘ecological citizenship’. The challenge for cultural policy is to help
forge and guide actions along these co-existing and overlapping strategic
paths towards sustainable development.

Introduction
On 25 September 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the 193 Member
States of the United Nations and took effect on 1 January 2016. These goals follow the earlier Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) as a normative and technical framework for concerted government action
towards global development. The adjustment from ‘development’ to ‘sustainable development’ is signifi-
cant, as it signals both a shift in objectives (towards sustainability) and a shift in scope (from ‘developing’
countries to all countries). This act has put sustainability at the centre of global political debate, policy,
and programmes for years to come.
In this context, sustainability is not simply defined as one easy-to-reach goal, but as a complex set
of visions for the future of humanity. It is worth citing the explanation provided on the SDG website
at some length:
We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want, where all life can thrive. We envisage a world free
of fear and violence. A world with universal literacy. A world with equitable and universal access to quality educa-
tion at all levels, to health care and social protection, where physical, mental and social well-being are assured …

We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and
non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the
full realisation of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity …

We envisage a world in which every country enjoys sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and
decent work for all. A world in which consumption and production patterns and use of all natural resources –
from air to land, from rivers, lakes and aquifers to oceans and seas – are sustainable. One in which democracy,

CONTACT Nancy Duxbury [email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 215

good governance and the rule of law as well as an enabling environment at national and international levels, are
essential for sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development,
environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger … (UN 2015, n.p.)
This extensive set of visions (slightly reduced here) encompasses a very broad conceptualisation of
‘sustainability’ that intertwines environmental health, vibrancy, and biodiversity with social justice,
equity, and inclusivity; individual opportunity, well-being, and capability development; and a sense of
global citizenship based on human rights and dignity, democracy, and good governance (cf. Sen 2010).
The vision is operationalized through 17 goals,1 which are elaborated through 169 specific targets to be
achieved over the next 15 years and indicators that track the achievement of the targets. Critics have
already questioned the effectiveness of such a wide-ranging agreement with its comprehensiveness
of topic areas. Langford (2016), for example, points to its breadth as potentially providing ‘a convenient
cover for problematic compromises and a conservative capture of the monitoring process’ and notes
that its effectiveness as a political resource and implementation success depends on the organiza-
tions and agencies that drove its expansiveness to push for targets that are salient, demanding, and
operationalisable.
In the debates preceding the adoption of the SDGs, particularly in the context of the Open Working
Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG) that was established in
January 2013 to engage in an extensive public consultation process, interest groups of different kinds
actively lobbied for the inclusion of ‘their’ activities and goals in the list of objectives. Culture-focused
initiatives were largely aimed at obtaining an explicit mention and integration of culture in the post-
2015 development agenda, with a particular focus on introducing a cultural goal. UNESCO’s dominant
narratives in this context were of culture (and the cultural sector more specifically) as an ‘enabler’ and a
‘driver’ of sustainability (see, e.g. Hosagrahar 2012). The Group of Friends of Culture and Development,
comprising 29 countries from all regions, also advocated for fully integrating culture in the post-2015
development agenda. Moreover, an unprecedented coalition of international NGOs led a global cam-
paign to establish a goal focused on culture in the post-2015 development agenda (IFACCA, United
Cites and Local Governments – Committee on Culture, International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural
Diversity, and Cultural Action Europe 2013).2 In these initiatives, culture was defined as ‘both a vector
to foster other sustainable development goals and a development end in itself’ (IFACCA, United Cites
and Local Governments – Committee on Culture, International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural
Diversity, and Cultural Action Europe 2013, 7).
In the final SDG (and Targets) approved by the UN’s General Assembly, the actual place and role of
culture in the goals is limited. The document mentions culture (linked with terms such as civilization,
diversity, inter-cultural, heritage, and tourism) in four areas – education, economic growth, consumption
and production patterns, and sustainable cities – but fails to identify culture as a stand-alone goal. As
both David Throsby and Y. Raj Isar note (in this special issue), the final goals do not refer to the case for
integrating culture into sustainable development planning and decision-making, and in spite of several
years of advocacy and research demonstrating the impacts of culture-led development projects (e.g.
MDG Achievement Fund 2013), it remains unclear in the SDG documents precisely how culture can
contribute to attaining these objectives. Furthermore, the failure to consider culture as an important
pillar of sustainable development in the SDGs overlooks the contributions that indigenous peoples can
make regarding how to ground sustainable development and understand ‘the foundation of culture
as key to sustaining and balancing development with nature and people’ (Watene and Yap 2015, 53;
Throsby and Petetskaya 2016; Jeannotte, in this issue).
In this context, this article aims to clarify how cultural policy/ies can contribute to sustainable devel-
opment trajectories. To historically contextualise this question, it presents the key outlines of the often
parallel but occasionally intersecting trajectories of ‘culture and sustainable development’ and ‘cultural
policy’ discourses. It grapples with the plurality of conceptual approaches that have resulted and con-
cludes by exploring four roles for cultural policy in an attempt to make our era that of sustainability.
216 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

Chronological and conceptual trajectories

Culture and sustainable development
While environmental discourse grew slowly from the 1950s in the context of worsening socio-economic
and ecological conditions (Quental, Lourenço, and Nunes da Silva 2011), the integrating concept of
‘sustainable development’ first appeared in the international policy arena in 1980 when the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources published the World Conservation Strategy,
proclaiming ‘the overall aim of achieving sustainable development through the conservation of living
resources’ (iv). In the strategy, ‘development’ was defined as ‘the modification of the biosphere and the
application of human, financial, living and non-living resources to satisfy human needs and improve the
quality of human life’ (1). The section ‘Towards Sustainable Development’ identified the main agents of
habitat destruction as poverty, population pressure, social inequity, and the terms of trade.
During the 1980s (often viewed as a time of stagnation in sustainable development policy and a
‘lost decade’ in global development), ‘a debt crisis, mounting unemployment, adjustment to these
new economic realities, budgetary cuts across the board, and the threat of a new arms race’ resulted,
in many countries, in ‘embracing efficiency, rather than equity and solidarity, as guiding principles, and
in a weakening of the spirit of international cooperation’ (Pronk 2015, 368). As a critical response to the
economic logic of development thinking, the human development approach emerged in the late 1980s.
This approach was an attempt to provide a framework to conceptualise and measure development as
the opportunities people have to build a life ‘they value and they have reason to value’ (Sen 1999, 291).
The process of enlarging people’s choices has two sides: the formation of human capabilities and the
use people make of their acquired capabilities (e.g. for leisure, productive purposes, or being active
in cultural, social and political affairs) (UNDP 1990). The policy imperative of the human development
reports is to make the non-economic count as well.
Critical academic research emphasised a growth of interest in culture and a turn away from econ-
omy. New conceptualizations, such as ‘signifying practices’ (Williams 1958), cultural capital and social
distinction (Bourdieu 1984), human development, capability and freedom (Sen 1987, 1999), central
human capabilities and human rights (Nussbaum 1995, 2006), cultural capacity and the capacity to
aspire (Appadurai 2004), and cultural values and cultural capital (Throsby 1999), allowed for several
interpretations of the role of culture in (economic) development and the articulation of a world in
which development can either fail or succeed. Underlying these works was the idea that development
should not be considered as a finality (generally expressed in a monetary value derived from work),
but the extent to which people are able to participate in political, social, and economic life (Sen 1999).
This liberal and methodologically individualist political philosophy focuses on individuals in societies,
rather than countries’ average economic wealth (expressed in GDP per capita).
The normative framework was operationalized for policy and analysis by Mahbub ul Haq, who led the
development of the Human Development Index (HDI) for the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). This index included health and education alongside income (GDP/capita) to give governments
an incentive to invest in public services that would increase the education and health of their citizens.
By strengthening all three levels of performance, countries would gain a higher HDI score and rise in
the ranking of countries. The UN MDGs, the first global set of measurable development objectives,
were built directly on these principles of human development. The role of culture, however, remained
limited in both the literature on human development (see Rao and Walton 2004; De Beukelaer 2015)
and the MDGs (Baltà Portolés 2013, Throsby in this issue).
In 1987, the World Commission for the Environment and Development published the report, Our
Common Future. The UN Working Group had been inspired by the earlier report to the Club of Rome,
The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). Under the direction of Gro Harlem Brundtland (whose name
would be used to informally refer to both the commission and the report), the World Commission
defined ‘sustainable development’ as: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. It contained within it two key
concepts: that of ‘needs’ (‘in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 217

should be given’) and that of ‘limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation
on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs’ (WCED 1987, 42, 43). The Brundtland
Commission introduced a new principle into global development discourse, ‘sustainability’, considered
‘an essential precondition to be met in order to safeguard a common future’ (Pronk 2015, 368). The
Commission pointed out that ‘sustainable development must not endanger the natural systems that
support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils, and the living beings’ (55). From its per-
spective, there was no single focus (or object) of sustainability but, instead, all the economic, social, and
environmental systems must be simultaneously sustainable. Satisfying any one of these sustainability
pillars without also satisfying the others was deemed insufficient because they are interdependent,
and all needed to be addressed urgently.
Meanwhile, UNESCO had organized the World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico City in
1982 and put forward with great conviction the idea that ‘Culture constitutes a fundamental part of the
life of each individual and of each community … and development … whose ultimate aim should be
focused on man … must therefore have a cultural dimension’ (UNESCO 1982, 78, 79). The World Decade
for Cultural Development (1988–1997) was first raised at the Mexico Conference, and later approved
and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly. Promoting genuine diversity across business,
education, and the state, the Decade had two principal objectives: greater emphasis on the cultural
dimension in the development process, and the stimulation of creative skills and cultural life in general.
In the Decade’s final report, Our Creative Diversity (1996), the World Commission on Culture and
Development brought into focus the particular roles of culture within this conceptually evolving con-
stellation. The report linked cultural policy and sustainable development and connected culture to a
range of economic, political, and societal issues. Paralleling the process that had led from the Brundtland
Report to the Rio Summit (1992) and beyond, the World Commission on Culture and Development was
an important model for a new discussion about culture and development. Our Creative Diversity defined
the concepts of ‘culture’, ‘cultural development’, and ‘culturally sustainable development’. Culture was
seen as having both an instrumental role in promoting economic progress and a constituent role as a
desirable end itself, the characteristic of civilization that gives meaning to existence. However, a country
does not contain only one culture, and the Commission pointed to accepting diversity in individual
choices and group practices. In defining ‘culturally sustainable development’, it noted that as ‘we shift
our attention from [a] purely instrumental view of culture to awarding it a constructive, constitutive
and creative role, we have to see development in terms that include cultural growth’ (25). Although
not published in the report, the Commission also discussed ‘cultural sustainability’, linked to ‘cultural
valuations and cultural activities’ (Throsby 1997, 10).
In this context, the idea of ‘cultural development’ was introduced as a way of balancing cultural
and economic policy objectives (UNESCO 1998, 14–19). It included aims to facilitate cultural diversity
and give local communities opportunities for cultural expression, and to encourage cross-sectoral
partnerships as tools for supporting sustainable cultural activity. The conditions for ‘culturally sus-
tainable development’ called for public policy that would simultaneously encompass community
demands for nonmaterial well-being, inter-generational equity (that is, the distribution and pres-
ervation of resources for future generations), and the interdependence of economic and cultural
variables (Throsby 1997, 33).
The release of Our Creative Diversity was quickly followed up by the Intergovernmental Conference
on Cultural Policies for Development, held in Stockholm in 1998, and the resulting Action Plan on
Cultural Policies for Development (UNESCO 1998). Rooted in human development thinking, the report
advocated that to achieve ‘the social and cultural fulfilment of the individual’ (Principle 2), cultural
policy should be one of the main components of ‘endogenous and sustainable development policy’,
positioned within an integrated approach. It also recommended that any policy for development
must be ‘profoundly sensitive to culture itself’ and take into account cultural factors.
In the early 2000s, the idea to translate some of these challenges into binding legal documents
gathered momentum. This eventually culminated in the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (henceforth ‘the Convention’), building on the earlier
218 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 2001 UNESCO
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.
The raisons d’être of Our Creative Diversity (1996) and the 2005 Convention differ significantly. The
former focused on culture (primarily as a ‘way of life’) in relation to development processes, as it put
forward the role of culture in considering the future we want, thereby putting culture at the core of
attempts to rethink the global ethics (and pragmatics) of development. The latter, on the contrary,
focuses on culture (as ‘cultural expressions’) as a trade issue,3 largely due to the fact that trade was the
principal area for U.S. opposition to the Convention. It serves as a legal document to protect the right of
countries to support cultural production, which would otherwise be considered as unfair state support
under WTO free trade agreements. While the Convention pays lip service to ‘sustainability’, this term
remains disconnected from its strong normative dimensions as conceived in the Brundtland report
(De Beukelaer and Freitas 2015). The first Global Report on the Convention (UNESCO 2015) provides a
stronger engagement with sustainability than the Convention itself, but remains overall more focused
on ‘sustainable systems of governance for culture’ than the integration of ‘culture in sustainable devel-
opment frameworks’ (Throsby 2015).

Evolutionary currents of cultural policy

Within such international political-conceptual currents, national cultural policy regimes reflect the his-
tories of nation building, the making of the modern state, institutional arrangements, and the modes
of government specific to each country. They also reflect the patterns of the national art and cultural
fields, their internal hierarchies, and the contents of art and culture that were included or excluded
in the policy regime (Miller and Yúdice 2002; Kangas 2004; Milz 2007; Dubois 2015). It is difficult to
generalise about the evolution of cultural policies before the Second World War; however, the postwar
period signified a clear change in the formation of cultural policy and in the ways it was implemented.
Formalised cultural policy efforts emerged internationally and in the 1940–1950s, many countries estab-
lished small administrative organisations for culture (e.g. Arts Councils, Ministries of Education and/
or Culture). During this time, the concept of culture was restricted, with the scope of cultural policy
tightly linked to value appraisal of what deserved to be conceived as culture and what did not in cultural
policy-making practices (Volkerling 1996; Gray 2007).
From the 1960s, UNESCO has played a strong role in strengthening national cultural policies. In
1967, UNESCO organized a roundtable meeting in Monaco, which highlighted that each country has a
different general concept of the action that public authorities should take in the cultural field, and of its
justification and aims, and it was not UNESCO’s role to define the cultural policy of states. At the same
time, there was a recognised need for exchange of information and experience between countries. An
examination of the idea of cultural policy during this meeting resulted in two hegemonic keystones
emerging: First, a thesis: ‘Economic and social development should go hand in hand with cultural
development’ (UNESCO 1969, 10), which emphasised the importance of integrating cultural policy in
general planning. Second, as far as possible, ‘all barriers (geographical, financial, and social) to access-
ing culture should be removed’, which reinforced that the arts and cultural activities should be a part
of the services of the welfare state and should be available to everyone. This approach was grounded
on the view that the arts were potentially of benefit to everyone, regardless of age, sex, race, or class.4
In the 1970s, strong discussions about ‘new cultural policy’ brought forth a new vocabulary featuring
the concepts of ‘democratization of culture’ and ‘cultural democracy’. Both concepts aimed to promote
cultural participation, widen access to cultural life, and ensure an active share in it. While ‘democratiza-
tion of culture’ aims to ensure the widest possible dissemination of works of art and of the mind which
cultivated people consider being of capital importance, ‘cultural democracy’ emphasises the ambition
to promote the greatest possible diversity of forms of cultural expression, encouraging active partici-
pation in community cultural life and in policy decisions that affect the quality of cultural life (Mennell
1979; Bennett 1996; Evrard 1997; Kangas 2003, 2004). This decade also featured the strengthening of
institutionalisation and professionalism in the cultural fields (UNESCO 1981).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 219

During the 1970s, cultural policy became a growing part of governments’ welfare policy. The benefits
and relevance of culture to society as a whole became a priority within this purview, with a general
emphasis on cultural participation. This social role of culture was considered both in terms of social class
levels and in the context of geographical distribution. Local and regional authorities began to take on
new tasks, aiming to provide their populations with a coherent range of cultural facilities and services,
and local cultural offices were established in many cities. Through these developments, the definition
of culture broadened, still encompassing professional arts development but also beginning to lean
towards a more anthropological definition incorporating cultural identity and diversity, while cultural
policy was increasingly linked to education, social, and urban policy. The need for a cultural dimension
in projects of social integration, particularly in disadvantaged urban areas, began to be recognised
and the role of socio-cultural animators was emphasised (Council of Europe 1978). At the international
level, UNESCO-organized intergovernmental continental conferences focused on the roles of cultural
professionals, the cultural dimension of development, and the struggle against social exclusion.5
While the 1970s was a period of ideological realignment, the 1980s was a time for practical structur-
ing and effectuation. The economic stagnation of the early 1980s, combined with a growing neoliberal
political zeitgeist, meant that national governments reconsidered their tasks in various fields, including
culture. The cultural sector still focused on high artistic quality and professionalism but, at the same time,
funding contexts became more market-oriented and budget cuts had to be made. Governments encour-
aged institutions to acquire extra earnings in order to reduce their dependence on public subsidies. The
changed economic conditions played a part in criticism of public administration and public cultural
services in the context of the market economy (Kangas 2004). A new term, ‘instrumental cultural policy’,
gained in popularity as cultural productions and investments were increasingly used as instruments
to attain goals in areas other than the cultural sector (e.g. regional and urban development) (Vestheim
1994; McGuigan 2004). At the same time, the main targets of cultural policy were still the promotion of
artistic creativity and making it easier for people to access art activities, making the participants more
‘civilized’, and defining art by means of the ‘art world’ and ‘culturally competent’ audiences.
Propelled by a neoliberal tide, the UN World Decade for Cultural Development (1988 to 1997) was
grounded in a multi-ethnic definition and appreciation of culture (discussed previously), as well as the
formation of cultural policy with an eye to the impacts of globalization on the state and the market.
A new policy discourse of ‘creative industries’ and a policy practice, known as the ‘creative industries
model’ in the U.K. and Australia,6 became successful exports to other parts of the world, linking together
a seemingly heterogeneous set of sub-sectors as the ‘creative industries’. Highly capital-intensive sectors
(e.g. film, radio, and television), the arts, and heritage were associated with both economic and social
welfare discourses. Cultural policy also became strongly linked with global information society policy,
and the implications of technological change and convergence (Rabinovich 2007). The significance of
creativity as a driver of economic growth in cities, regions, and advanced capitalist economies increased
with the rise of ‘creative city’ aspirations internationally, fuelled by works such as Landry (2000) and
Scott (2000). In the transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, market forces became more
generally accepted and in international organisations such as UNESCO, cultural and creative industries
appeared as a strategic concept in intergovernmental conferences and recommendations.7 Debates
among policymakers, consultants, and academics influenced a re-emerging cultural industries agenda
at the United Nations. In the first instance, the ‘cultural industries’ became central to the 2005 UNESCO
Convention (see above). Later, UNCTAD built on the ‘creative industries’ in the articulation of their
Creative Economy Reports (2008, 2010, forthcoming), and the Special Edition of the report published by
UNESCO (2013). Collectively, these documents have propelled the ‘cultural’ and ‘creative’ industries into
cultural policy and development policy debates around the world (De Beukelaer and O’Connor 2016).
In sum, cultural policy discourses do not exist in isolation from the major debates (ideologies) of the
day and at the same time there is also continuity across the periods (Sokka and Kangas 2007). Over time,
new ways of considering the borders of the cultural field have challenged the definition of cultural policy.
Within the cultural policy field, explicitly instrumental policies aiming to use culture to overcome
societal challenges have been developed in attempts to strengthen the case for public expenditure
220 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

on culture. Through these trajectories, cultural policy expanded in two main areas. First, the capacity
of arts and culture has been used to regenerate cities and peripheral areas, even if the intended ‘Bilbao
effect’ proved difficult to attain elsewhere (Plaza and Haarich 2009). Cultural industries, creative arts
and heritage have been used to attract investment into cities and regions (linked to competitiveness),
even if this essentially led to a zero sum game among those who actively compete (and created only
‘losers’ among the cities that did not take part in this competition). In these situations, local govern-
ments benefit from successfully realised cultural projects: the image of the region, suburb, or district
alters, wealthy consumers and taxpayers may move there, and the value of the land and the estates and
services increases. At the same time, one of the effects of regeneration policies may be gentrification:
the area becomes more expensive to live in, and lower social classes are forced to move away (Peck
2005). Local, regional, and national policy schemes have differed on how they have set their respect
priorities in these matters (Vicario and Martínez Monje 2003; Kangas 2004; Wilks-Heeg and North 2004).
Second, cultural activities have been used to improve social inclusion, provide social welfare, and foster
social cohesion (Jeannotte 2000; Duxbury 2002; NESF 2007, Støvring 2012), even if the sector remains
deeply reliant on free and speculative labour (Gollmitzer and Murray 2009; Ross 2010; Randle 2015) and,
as research in the U.K. shows, succeeding in the arts and culture requires ample social and economic
capital (O’Brien 2014). As Belfiore (2002) has stated, ‘Many attempts have been made to demonstrate
that culture is a peculiarly successful means of promoting social cohesion, inclusion or regeneration, but
they miss the point if they regard culture as one means to social regeneration among various possible
others’ (104; see also Belfiore and Bennett 2008).

Discrepancies of concepts, frameworks, and dimensions of sustainability and culture

As outlined in the previous section, the historically weak position of culture in major sustainable devel-
opment policy documents has inspired numerous initiatives to conceptualise and articulate a ‘place’ for
culture in sustainability or sustainable development, which has resulted in a wide array of perspectives
and definitions. As Isar (in this special issue) highlights, the concepts and frameworks that have evolved
to situate culture in sustainability contexts have demonstrated substantial flexibility and a widening
plurality of approaches over time. While flexibility can enable meaningful modifications and adaptations
of conceptual constructs and frameworks to specific contexts (whether political, cultural, economic,
or geographic), this ‘elasticity’ is now becoming a liability to the design and advancement of policy.
Scholarly analyses tend to divide the concept of sustainable development into multiple dimensions:
environmental, economic, social, cultural, and sometimes others (e.g. Seghezzo 2009; Hasna 2012;
Peterson 2016). This conceptual practice of compartmentalisation has been widely criticized (e.g. Gibson
2006; Connelly 2007; Griggs et al. 2013; Boyer et al. 2016; Coutinho de Arruda and Lino de Almeida
Lavorato 2016) with the main difficulty building on the paradox that all these elements are equally
part of the sustainability conundrum, yet political discourse typically does not allow for the layered
complexity that is needed to inclusively tackle these issues.
In general, the dimensions of sustainability are considered to overlap and bear equal importance,
with arguments demonstrating how the dimensions cannot be completely separated and how ‘real’
sustainability can be achieved only when all dimensions are combined or intersected (Elliott 2006;
Connelly 2007). However, the tendency to define different dimensions of sustainable development
reinforces administrative and policy separation in practice. Furthermore, the dimensions can also be
seen as contradictory, proposing a need to make value judgments between different dimensions. One
of them may be considered to be primary, followed by others. Within this contentious and shifting
framework, the social and cultural dimensions of sustainability, sometimes reported as a socio-cultural
dimension, are tightly interconnected but feature distinct subjects and priorities.8
The varied use of the term culture in both academic and policy discourses adds further ambiguity
to the overall debate. The mainstream field of sustainability has considered culture mainly in terms of
societal values, general perceptions, and consumption practices (e.g. Assadourian, Starke, and Mastny
2010; Caradonna 2014; Robertson 2014). In this context, debates on the interrelationships among
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 221

Culture in sustainability Culture for sustainability Culture as sustainability

Figure 1. Three approaches for exploring culture-sustainability relations.

Notes: These diagrams represent three approaches to culture (represented in darker shading) in sustainable development (the three other circles
represent the social, economic, and environmental dimensions): ‘Culture added as a fourth pillar (left diagram), culture mediating between the three
pillars (central diagram) and culture as the foundation for sustainable development. The arrows indicate the ever-changing dynamics of culture and
sustainable development (right diagram)’ (Dessein et al. 2015, 29).

nature and culture have traditionally had a primarily rural and long-term inflection (e.g. Pilgrim and
Pretty 2013). Consideration of the place of culture in urban sustainable development has inspired the
emergence of works with attention to the role of community arts, everyday creativity, and artists in cities
aiming to contribute to the goal of a sustainable future (e.g. Hristova, Dragićević Šešić, and Duxbury
2015; Blanc and Benish 2016). Acknowledging different perspectives on the topic, thus making cultural
policy actors more conscious of co-existing narratives about culture and sustainable development
and the assumptions that underlie them, enables greater attention to be focused on negotiating and
reconciling (if necessary) the prevailing tensions and contradictions (Torggler et al. 2015).
Dessein et al. (2015) have introduced three approaches that outline the ways in which culture is
predominantly positioned vis-à-vis sustainability and its general role in each situation (see Figure 1, in
which the more darkly shaded circles represent culture). They have been elaborated as ‘culture in sustain-
ability’, ‘culture for sustainability’, and ‘culture as sustainability’ and provide one framework from which to
organize diverse discourses and examine prevailing conceptual issues. The first representation, ‘culture in
sustainability’, considers culture as having an independent or autonomous role in sustainability: culture
becomes the fourth dimension of sustainability. The approach views cultural sustainability as parallel
to ecological, social, and economic sustainability, with all comprising interconnected dimensions of
sustainability. The second representation, ‘culture for sustainability’, stresses culture having a mediat-
ing role to achieve economic, social, and ecological sustainability. The third representation, ‘culture as
sustainability’, considers culture not only as an instrument but a necessary foundation for meeting the
overall aims of sustainability. In this approach, culture encloses all other dimensions of sustainability
and becomes an overarching concern or paradigm of sustainability.
The representations highlight one of the main issues encountered in aligning these discourses, the
‘multi-interpretability’ of the key terms culture and sustainability/sustainable development (Soini and
Birkeland 2014, 213). The figures serve as an analytical tool to assist in organising, comparing, and
aligning different discourses, and provide a framework from which to explore and assess each gen-
eral approach in more detail (e.g. Soini and Dessein 2016). However, they do not aim to reconcile the
competing paradigms toward an integrated model, and their applicability to the international cultural
policy context is yet to be explored.

Cultural policy for sustainable development

In terms of policy, we focus now on the domain of cultural policy and how it is located relative to
sustainability. A core issue in this endeavour is that cultural policy requires close attention within the
realm of activity under its mandate, yet sustainability is a multisectoral, complex bundle of issues and
policies that inevitably cross boundaries between sectors and policy fields. As is common in cultural
222 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

Table 1. Four strategic lines of cultural policy for sustainable development.

Primary objectives Roles of cultural policy Culture concept Sustainability concept
To safeguard and sustain cultural Regulator and Protector Cultural practices and rights Sustaining diverse cultural
practices and rights of groups practices and environments
into the future
To ‘green’ the operations Translator and Politicking The production and Environmental sustainability,
and ­impacts of cultural dissemination of cultural possibly also linked to social,
­organizations and industries expressions through events, cultural, and economic
products, services, etc. as sustainability (includes
well as modes and habits of reducing economic costs
cultural consumption by focusing on resource
efficiency)
To raise awareness and catalyse Animator and Catalyst Artistic and creative expres- Environmental sustainability
action about sustainability and sions – as works of art in dominant, possibly linked
climate change through arts themselves and explicitly also to social, cultural, and
and culture (or sometimes) implicitly economic sustainability
instrumentalised
To foster global ecological Educator and Promoter Identity and creative expres- Integrated social, economic,
citizenship to help identify and sion cultural, and environmental
tackle sustainability as a global dimensions
issue
Source: The authors.

policy, culture is primarily defined as creative or artistic expression and heritage. The connection of this
definition to a more anthropological notion of culture as a way of life is also in play, recognising that
the unresolved tension between these two notions tends to impede a systematic engagement with
culture for sustainable development.
While some organisations and commentators argue that cultural and creative industries have an
intrinsic capacity to contribute to sustainable development, such claims go largely unchecked. We
argue that these industries, along with other cultural, creative, and artistic activities, do not intrinsically
nor automatically contribute to sustainable development, but may do so under certain circumstances
and conditions.
How can cultural policies contribute to sustainable development trajectories? The challenge for
cultural policy is to embody very different roles in relation to sustainable development. Synthesizing
the key dimensions of contemporary discussions about culture and sustainability addressed by the
articles in this special issue, four key objectives in regard to cultural policy emerge: (1) to safeguard and
sustain cultural practices and rights; (2) to ‘green’ the operations and impacts of cultural organizations
and industries; (3) to raise awareness and catalyse actions about sustainability and climate change; and
(4) to foster ‘ecological citizenship’. Building from this, in Table 1 we dissect these four strategic lines to
identify their primary objectives, the roles cultural policy plays, and the key concepts of culture and
sustainability that are prevalent within each approach.

(1)  
Cultural policy to safeguard and sustain cultural practices and rights
This approach puts an emphasis on the cultural policy values of continuity and diversity. It does so by
focusing on concerns with the continuity of cultures over time and the value inherent in global cultural
diversity (e.g. contexts such as ‘cultural crises’, intercultural relations, and cultural rights). The discussion
extends from the important tools UNESCO has developed to help attain this, such as the Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO 2001), the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage (UNESCO 2003), and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions (UNESCO 2005). This strategic line focuses primarily on the need to sustain cultural practices
and cultural rights as ends in themselves.
This perspective focuses on the active agency and knowledges embedded in diverse cultural prac-
tices that should be safeguarded and sustained within a broader sustainable future. Within this strand,
cultural policy plays two primary roles: Regulator and Protector. Within these roles, it advocates for the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 223

right for groups and individuals to engage in cultural life and earn a living from creating culture (as
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Examples of this approach can be seen in
policies towards Sámi people in Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Russia, which reflect different relations
and discrepancies in how cultural policies view (or not) relations between sustainability and collective
cultural rights. Linked to the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (C169, 1989), although only Norway has ratified the Convention,
national policy approaches have differed between the countries (see, e.g. Johansson 2016). Some polit-
ical and legal gains have been made in recent decades, and international negotiations to develop
a Nordic Saami Convention among Norway, Sweden, and Finland have been underway since 2011
(Bankes and Koivurova 2013), but progress continues to be precarious (Roy Trudel, Heinämäki, and
Kastner 2016). Interlinked with issues of land and water rights, political decision-making, and self-de-
termination, concerns with the survival of languages and the maintenance of cultural traditions and
ways of life underline the importance of the transmission and ongoing vitality of Sámi knowledge and
practices. In this context, the importance of education and research to the Sámi is highlighted in the
establishment and operations of Sámi University of Applied Sciences, Norway. The university cooperates
with the Sámi community, particularly focusing on young people, to preserve and promote the Sámi
language, traditions, occupations, skills, and knowledge, and to support ‘the Sámi society’s progress
towards equality with the majority society.’ Within this perspective, Sámi research has an important
role: ‘Each Indigenous society needs to build its own scientific capacity, educate its experts and evolve
on level with the majority society and language cultures’ (Sámi University of Applied Sciences website,
http://samas.no/en, ‘Our Vision’ and ‘Research’ sections).
Can this approach contribute to expanded notions of sustainability (as the 2005 Convention sug-
gests), even though this is not an essential feature? The challenge is to reconcile and bridge the cul-
ture-focussed rationales with broader sustainability concerns and imperatives (see Throsby; and Baltà
Portolés and Dragićević Šešić in this issue).

(2)  
Cultural policy to ‘green’ the operations and impacts of cultural organizations and industries
In this strategic line, cultural policy includes an explicit environmental dimension and acts as a
vehicle to translate environmental regulation, planning, and restrictions to the organisational models
of the cultural sector, and potentially to advance them. It examines how cultural actors (and cultural
policy more generally) should integrate principles of sustainability within their work to transform the
pragmatic, strategic, and operational practices of the cultural sector in order to encompass greater
environmental responsibility. This strand is based in historic precedents in environmental legislation
with broad cross-sector applicability, but adapted and tailored to the nature of the cultural sector’s
operations and its prevailing environmental issues. A primary area in which this approach is found is in
the development of cultural facilities within the framework of ‘green’ building design. For example, the
cultural policy of the City of Lyon has taken environmental impacts into account in the development
of its opera house, while the Cultural Facilities Plan of Catalonia, Spain (PECCAT) included a set of ten
indicators to monitor the environmental sustainability of the cultural facilities developed within the plan
(Martínez i Illa and Rius i Ulldemolins 2011). More broadly, the environmental impacts of the operations
of cultural organizations and firms in the cultural industries are also being examined. An example of an
organisation working on these issues and lobbying for this kind of change in cultural policy is Julie’s
Bicycle, a U.K.-based charity that aims to connect organisations and individuals in the creative indus-
tries to expertise, capacity building, and leadership to reduce their environmental impacts. Here, the
sustainability of cultural life itself is taken for granted, but the environmental sustainability and impacts
of the operations of cultural organizations and the macro systems of the cultural sector are called into
question (see Loach, Rowley, and Griffiths; and Maxwell and Miller in this issue).
Within this (underdeveloped) strand, cultural policy plays two primary roles: Translator and
Politicking. However, despite incremental advances and a diversity of initiatives – and some mention
in policy rhetoric – an integration of environmental dimensions within cultural policy and programme
frameworks is still rare (see Moore and Tickell 2014).
224 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

(3)  
Cultural policy to support the cultural sector to raise awareness and catalyse action about sus-
tainability and climate change
This strand emphasises the role for artistic expression in the process towards widespread cultural
change and ‘way of life’ transformation to modes of thinking and manners more complementary to
sustainable living (i.e. given climate change and other pressing environmental issues as well as cultural
and social crises in the world, issues of inequity, etc.). It is primarily focused on the messaging and
meaning-making function of culture, and especially on the messages created by actors in the cultural
sector (artists, arts organizations, heritage institutions, etc.). Environmental sustainability is the dominant
concern, in many cases interlinked with social, cultural, and economic sustainability issues. Within this
strand, cultural policy plays two roles: Animator and Catalyst.
Policy within this approach is reflected in the development of support programs directed specif-
ically to support artistic projects relating to themes of sustainability, although these are often found
at a subnational or local level. For example, over the past decade the City of Vancouver, through the
Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, has supported a series of environmental art projects with a
strong public engagement dimension9 with the importance of this approach acknowledged in the Park
Board’s environmental education and stewardship action plan, Rewilding Vancouver: From Sustaining to
Flourishing (2014). At an international level, a network of ten arts organizations within Europe, Imagine
2020, is supported by Creative Europe to fund artistic commissions, foster research and development,
and promote sharing of resources, ideas, knowledge and debate of various topics under the umbrella
of art and ecology (http://www.imagine2020.eu/about/). Another example of cultural sector action
within this strategic line is ArtCOP, the ‘artivist’ (a conjunction of art and activist) collective that organ-
ised artistic interventions in the fringes of the Conference of Parties (COP) in 2015, the global meeting
where states negotiated international environmental regulation. While not directly involved in the
formal policymaking processes, such activist initiatives produce artistic interventions that can influ-
ence the politics and policies of major cultural institutions and the wider general public – from local to
international scales (see Maxwell and Miller in this issue).

(4)  
Cultural policy to foster global ‘ecological citizenship’
Nick Stevenson (2003) argues that ‘ecological citizenship places its faith in the recovery of public
space and human responsibility in order to attend to the environmental crisis. Neither market nor
state institutions are likely to offer adequate responses to these issues without an enhanced role for
the citizen’ (94). In this context, cultural policy, as a tool for creating ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson
1983), can be one way to foster global citizenship to help identify and tackle sustainability as a global
issue. But unlike Anderson’s preoccupation with the nation as the locus and focus of such imagined
communities, we stress the need to foster a cosmopolitan community, that is, a global community that
embraces global awareness about a global challenge, beyond merely national or regional interests and
priorities. This objective contrasts quite strongly with the underlying objective of much cultural policy
to create and reinforce national identities, where citizens are encouraged to think in terms of their
national affiliation rather than as part of humanity as a whole. Ecological citizenship thus presupposes
‘cosmopolitan’ citizenship – as climate change is an issue that requires concerted action from humanity
as a whole (see Isar and Jeannotte in this issue).
This particular role of policy remains most elusive, as it challenges the place and role of cultural
policy. Public policy is, by definition, defined and articulated within the framework of a state that has
the political legitimacy to enforce it. As there is no such framework at a global level, a truly global pol-
icy framework is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to imagine. At the same time, cultural policy – as
an instrument in identity politics – has built on, and accentuated, difference. Shifting from a sense of
community (i.e. national) belonging to a sense of global belonging (an imagined humanity as opposed
to community) would fundamentally alter the basis of identity politics – at least for those issues that are
actually shared by humanity. As our natural environment is arguably the realm that is most cogently
contextualising our sense of global belonging and survival today, it can form the bedrock for this
renewed sense of belonging, shared human responsibility, and citizenship, with international cultural
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 225

policy embracing this foundation and cultivating its development. To date – and to the best of our
knowledge – this principle has not found its place in actual policy strategies.
In this strand, the focus is on culture both as identity and as creative expression. Sustainability is
conceived with integrated social, economic, cultural, and environmental dimensions. Cultural policy
can play two primary roles: Educator and Promoter. While creative expression has captured the need
to increase awareness of and act upon global sustainability issues, cultural policy largely remains tied
up with methodological nationalism. Going beyond efforts to raise awareness and catalyse action,
which are encompassed in the previous role, this fourth role aims to construct the worldview that
contexualizes and propels these actions, with a focus on (in)forming our collective sense of belonging
and responsibility.

Conclusion
Since the mid-twentieth century, repeated international efforts to integrate culture in sustainable devel-
opment frameworks have reflected the challenging need to balance the integral importance of culture
itself with prevailing policy streams, rationales, and broader societal and environmental issues. The result
of these efforts is a long-term legacy of policy statements, principles, and other efforts to reinforce the
importance of culture in sustainable development, a legacy that is marked by both an expanding array
of actors involved in these discourses over time and, intertwined with this, a diversification of concepts,
arguments, and approaches. Cultural policy, which as a field embraces a diversity of values, approaches,
roles, and rationalizations, has intersected with these discourses from time to time, influenced by the
major debates and ideologies of the day. However, in general, the main trajectories of cultural policy
have been positioned ‘separately’ from these debates.
Today, the challenge for cultural policy is to embody very different roles in relation to sustainable
development. These different roles often co-exist and overlap. But it is important to clarify how they
differ and why. Most of the differences are down to semantics: culture and sustainability simply mean
different things in these contexts.
In the Brundtland report, sustainable development was characterised by key normative principles:
‘Actions are deemed in keeping with sustainable development principles as far as they promote inter-
and intra-generational equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, participation and gender
equity, and are assessed to be within the planet’s ecological means’ (Beland Lindahl et al. 2015, 8).
Importantly, the Commission notes, if sustainable development is to be meaningful, it ‘must involve
a consequent engagement with environmental limits’ (8, citing Meadowcroft 2013). In situations of
local sustainable development negotiations and discourse, these principles can serve as benchmarks
in assessing the merits (or otherwise) of alternate ‘sustainable’ pathways. We argue that they are also
useful guidelines in re-visiting cultural policy from a sustainability perspective and context.
Leaping forward almost three decades – within an ever more pressing and critical global envi-
ronmental context – the SDGs approved in late 2016 maintain these core principles but elaborate a
much more comprehensive and complex set of visions to guide collective development efforts. The
complexity presents a challenging situation. At a time when environmental crises are dominant, the
comprehensive vision appears to dilute this focus. The SDG set of visions is richly aspirational but, as
mentioned earlier, their effectiveness as a political resource and implementation success depends on
the organizations and agencies that drove its expansiveness to push for targets that are salient, demand-
ing, and operationalisable. Furthermore, the limited references to culture within this expanded frame,
despite unprecedented international efforts, indicates that significant challenges remain to effectively
intersect with the mechanics of international policy development in this context. With these concerns
as backdrop, to advance cultural policy in ways aligned with this envisioned global model of sustainable
development, the possible paths and roles for culture must be further clarified, demonstrated, and (in
this context) made measurable.
As a contribution towards these goals, this article aims to address and unravel some of the con-
ceptual opacity and inflated claims about the role culture can play in sustainable development. In this
226 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

process, four possible roles emerge for cultural policy: to safeguard and sustain cultural practices and
rights; to ‘green’ the operations and impacts of cultural organizations and industries; to raise awareness
and catalyse action about sustainability and climate change through arts and culture; and to foster
global ecological citizenship to help identify and tackle sustainability as a global issue (see Table 1).
Examining cultural policy from the context of sustainable development strengthens the argument for
cultural policy beyond national borders, which appears increasingly important. This should be devel-
oped as a distinctively global exercise by leading actors in international cultural policy and in the ‘culture
and sustainable development’ policy debates. Such an undertaking could involve, for example, the
United Nations and UNESCO, the European Union, the European Cultural Foundation, African Union,
the Asia-Europe Foundation, Organisation of Ibero-american States for Education, Science and Culture,
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the different foundations that support ‘arts and culture’
internationally, but always within national borders. Thus, underlying these four strategic lines, there
is an cross-cutting dimension that needs to be integrated into a new sustainability-oriented cultural
policy which consists of the conceptual orientations and principles that qualitatively change the way in
which goals and strategies are formulated, policies and programs are operated, and decisions are made.

Notes
1. 
The 17 SDG goals are: (1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere; (2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; (3) Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; (4)
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; (5) Achieve
gender equality and empower all women and girls; (6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water
and sanitation for all; (7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all; (8) Promote
sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all;
(9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation; (10)
Reduce inequality within and among countries; (11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient
and sustainable; (12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; (13) Take urgent action to combat
climate change and its impacts; (14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
sustainable development; (15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably
manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss; (16)
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build
effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels; and (17) Strengthen the means of implementation
and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.
2. 
See Vlassis (2015) on the history of these negotiations.
3. 
Due to increased globalisation, cultural expressions such as films, books, music recordings, and so on traveled more
easily and rapidly than ever before, yet while some countries had developed strong local markets and significant
domestic production, others struggled to produce content in the globalised cultural industries. As well, countries
with significant local production, such as France, perceived a threat from the influx of (primarily Anglophone)
content that could diminish the cultural character of the country.
4. 
At the same time, through a separate UN process, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 (https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/
IHRIP/circle/modules/module3.htm).
5. 
These conferences included: Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional, Administrative and Financial Aspects
of Cultural Policies, Venice, 1970; Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies in Europe, Helsinki, 1972;
Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies in Asia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 1973; Intergovernmental
Conference on Cultural Policies in Africa, Accra, Ghana, 1975; and Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies
in Latin America and Caribbean, Bogotá, 1978.
6. 
See the decision in 1997 by the newly elected British Labour government headed by Tony Blair to establish a
Creative Industries Task Force as a central activity of its new Department of Culture, Media and Sport (see Flew
2012) and the publication of Creative Nation in Australia in 1994 (Government of Australia 1994).
7. 
Mexico City World Conference on Cultural Policies (MONDIACULT), 1982.
8. 
For detailed discussions of social sustainability, see Boström (2012).
9. 
The environmental art projects supported have addressed a range of environmental topics of importance to city
residents, with broader conceptual and pragmatic resonance in society, such as: how to ethically coexist and
collectively define shared urban spaces with urban animals; how contemporary city gardens and plants can be used
to support and extend multi-cultural traditions in an urban environment; and how green waste can be creatively
repurposed. For details, see: http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/environmental-art.aspx.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 227

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Nancy Duxbury, PhD, is a senior Rresearcher at the Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal, and co-coordi-
nator of its Cities, Cultures and Architecture Research Group. She is also Adjunct Professor of the School of Communication,
Simon Fraser University and of the School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, Canada. Her research
has examined the integration of culture in local sustainable development, with an emphasis on the policy and planning
frameworks that enable this; culture-based development models in smaller communities; and the interdisciplinary field
of cultural mapping.
Anita Kangas, PhD, is Professor Emerita of Cultural Policy at the Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University
of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research interests consist of three major areas: the politics of cultural participation and cultural
democracy; local cultural institutions, questions of governance, and the role of arts and culture in sustainable development;
and histories of cultural policy and theoretical issues such as (new) institutionalism and action research methodology.
Christiaan De Beukelaer, PhD, is a lecturer in Cultural Policy at the School of Culture and Communication, University of
Melbourne, Australia. In 2012, he won the Cultural Policy Research Award, as a result of which he published Developing
Cultural Industries: Learning from the Palimpsest of Practice (European Cultural Foundation, 2015) and co-editor of Culture,
Globalization, and Development: The UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity (Palgrave Macmillan 2015, with Miikka
Pyykkönen and JP Singh). He is currently working on a co-authored book Global Cultural Economy (Routledge,with Justin
O’Connor).

ORCID
Nancy Duxbury http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5611-466X
Anita Kangas http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7962-8225
Christiaan De Beukelaer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9045-9979

References
Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Appadurai, A. 2004. “The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition.” In Culture and Public Action, edited by
Y. Rao and M. Walton, 59–84. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Assadourian, E., L. Starke, and L. Mastny. 2010. State of the World, 2010: Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to
Sustainability. A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York: W. W. Norton.
Baltà Portolés, J. 2013. Culture and Development: Review of MDG-F Joint Programmes Key Findings and Achievements. New
York: UNDP.
Bankes, N., and T. Koivurova, eds. 2013. The Proposed Nordic Saami Convention: National and International Dimensions of
Indigenous Property Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Beland Lindahl, K., S. Bakere, L. Rist, and A. Zachrisson. 2015. “Theorizing Pathways to Sustainability.” International Journal
of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 23 (5): 1–13.
Belfiore, E. 2002. “Art as a Means of Alleviating Social Exclusion: Does it Really Work? A Critique of Instrumental Cultural
Policies and Social Impact Studies in the UK.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 8 (1): 91–106.
Belfiore, E., and O. Bennett. 2008. The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bennett, O. 1996. Cultural Policy and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Entrepreneurial Answers in the United Kingdom. Working paper
no. 2. Coventry: Centre for the Study of Cultural Policy, University of Warwick.
Blanc, N., and B. Benish. 2016. Form, Art and the Environment: Engaging in Sustainability. London: Routledge. Routledge
Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development series.
Boström, M. 2012. “A Missing Pillar? Challenges in Theorizing and Practicing Social Sustainability: Introduction to the Special
Issue.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8 (1), 3–14.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyer, R. H. W., N. D. Peterson, P. Arora, and K. Caldwell, 2016. Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated
Way Forward. Sustainability 8 (878), 1–18. doi:10.3390/su8090878
Caradonna, J. L. 2014. Sustainability: A history. New York: Oxford University Press.
Connelly, S. 2007. “Mapping Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept.” Local Environment 12 (3): 259–278.
228 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

Council of Europe. 1978. Socio-cultural Animation. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation, Education and Culture,
Council of Europe.
Coutinho de Arruda, M. C., and M. Lino de Almeida Lavorato. 2016. “Sustaining the Sustainable: Creating the Culture of
Sustainability.” In Understanding Ethics and Responsibilities in a Globalizing World, edited by M. C. Coutinho de Arruda
and B. Rok, 135–145. Springer.
De Beukelaer, C. 2015. Developing Cultural Industries: Learning from the Palimpsest of Practice. Amsterdam: European Cultural
Foundation.
De Beukelaer, C., and R. Freitas. 2015. “Culture and Sustainable Development: Beyond the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.”
In Globalization, Culture and Development: The UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity, edited by C. De Beukelaer, M.
Pyykkönen and J. P. Singh, 203–221. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Beukelaer, C., and J. O’Connor. 2016. “Art, Culture and Development: ‘Fast’ Creative Economy Policy Slowing Down?” In
Art and International Development, edited by P. Stupples and K. Teaiwa, 27–47. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dessein, J., K. Soini, G. Fairclough, and L. G. Horlings, eds. 2015. Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development: Conclusions
from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. http://www.
culturalsustainability.eu/conclusions.pdf
Dubois, V. 2015. “Cultural Policy Regimes in Western Europe.” In International encyclopedia of the behavioral and social
sciences. 2nd ed, edited by J. D. Wright, 460–465. London: Elsevier.
Duxbury, N., ed. 2002. “Special Issue: Making Connections: Culture and Social Cohesion in the New Millennium.” Canadian
Journal of Communication 27 (2–3): 117–399.
Elliott, J. A. 2006. An Introduction to Sustainable Development. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Evrard, Y. 1997. “Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 27 (3):
167–175.
Flew, T. 2012. The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy. London: Sage.
Gibson, R. B. 2006. “Beyond the Pillars: Sustainability Assessment as a Framework for Effective Integration of Social,
Economic and Ecological Considerations in Significant Decision-Making.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy
and Management 08 (03): 259–280.
Gollmitzer, M., and C. Murray. 2009. Work Flows and Flexicurity: Canadian Cultural Labour in the Era of the Creative Economy.
Vancouver: Center for Expertise on Culture and Communities.
Government of Australia. 1994. Creative nation. Canberra: Office for the Arts.
Gray, C. 2007. “Commodification and Instrumentality in Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2): 203–215.
Griggs, D., M. Stafford-Smith, O. Gaffney, J. Rockström, M. C. Öhman, P. Shyamsundar, W. Steffen, G. Glaser, N. Kanie, and I.
Noble. 2013. “Policy: Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet.” Nature 495: 305–307.
Hasna, A. M. 2012. “Dimensions of Sustainability.” Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Community Development 1 (2): 47–57.
Hosagrahar, J., 2012. Culture: A Driver and an Enabler of Sustainable Development. Thematic Think Piece for UNESCO.
Developed for the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. https://en.unesco.org/post2015/
sites/post2015/files/Think%20Piece%20Culture.pdf.
Hristova, S., M. Dragićević Šešić, and N. Duxbury, eds. 2015. Culture and Sustainability in European Cities: Imagining Europolis.
London: Routledge. Routledge Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development series.
IFACCA (International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies), United Cites and Local Governments – Committee
on Culture, International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity, and Cultural Action Europe, 2013. Culture as a
Goal in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. http://media.ifacca.org/files/cultureasgoalweb.pdf.
International Labour Organization, 1989. Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries
(C169). http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1980. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource
Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland: IUCNNR.
Jeannotte, S. 2000. “Tango Romantica or Liaisons Dangereuses? Cultural Policies and Social Cohesion: Perspectives from
Canadian Research.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 7 (1): 97–113.
Johansson, P. 2016. “Indigenous Self-determination in the Nordic Countries: The Sami, and The Inuit of Greenland.” In
Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, edited by C. Lennox and D. Short, 424–442. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Kangas, A. 2003. “Culture as a Local Tool and Public Service.” Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja 31 (4): 332–340.
Kangas, A., 2004. New Clothes for Cultural Policy. In Construction of Cultural Policy, edited by P. Ahponen and A. Kangas,
21–41. Jyväskylä: Minerva.
Landry, C. 2000. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
Langford, M. 2016. “Lost in Transformation? The Politics of the Sustainable Development Goals.” Ethics and International
Affairs 30 (02): 167–176.
Martínez i Illa, S., and Rius i Ulldemolins, J. 2011. “Cultural Planning and Community Sustainability: The Case of the Cultural
Facilities Plan of Catalonia (PECCAT 2010-20).” Culture and Local Governance 3 (1): 71–82.
McGuigan, J. 2004. Rethinking Cultural Policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
MDG Achievement Fund, 2013. Culture and Development: Thematic Window Development Results Report. October. http://
mdgfund.org/sites/default/files/Culture%20and%20Development%20-%20Development%20Results%20Report.pdf.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 229

Meadowcroft, J. 2013. “Reaching the Limits? Developed Country Engagement with Sustainable Development in a
Challenging Conjuncture.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31: 988–1002.
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrens III. 1972. Limits to Growth Report to the Club of Rome. New
York: New American Library.
Mennell, S. 1979. “Social Research and the Study of Cultural ‘Needs’.” In Social Research and Cultural Policy, edited by J.
Zuzanek, 15–36. Waterloo: Otium.
Miller, T., and G. Yúdice. 2002. Cultural Policy. London: Sage.
Milz, S. 2007. “Canadian Cultural Policy-making at a Time of Neoliberal Globalization.” ESC 3 (1–2): 85–107.
Moore, S., and A. Tickell. 2014. The Arts and Environmental Sustainability: An International Overview. D’Art Topics in Arts
Policy, No. 34b. Sydney: Julie’s Bicycle and the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies. http://
www.ifacca.org/topic/ecological-sustainability/
NESF (National Economic and Social Forum). 2007. The Arts, Cultural Inclusion and Social Cohesion. NESF Report no. 35.
http://files.nesc.ie/nesf_archive/nesf_reports/NESF_35_full.pdf.
Nussbaum, M. C. 1995. “Human capabilities, female human beings.” In Women, Culture, and Development, edited by M.
Nussbaum and J. Glover, 61–104. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
O’Brien, D. 2014. Cultural Policy: Management, Value and Modernity in the Creative Industries. London: Routledge.
Peck, J. 2005. “Struggling with the Creative Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740–770.
Peterson, N. 2016. “Introduction to the Special Issue on Social Sustainability: Integration, Context, and Governance.”
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 12(1): 3–7. Published online May 31.
Pilgrim, S., and J. Pretty. 2013. Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections. Oxon: Routledge.
Plaza, B., and S. N. Haarich. 2009. “Museums for Urban Regeneration? Exploring Conditions for their Effectiveness.” Journal
of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 2 (3): 259–271.
Pronk, J. 2015. “From Post 1945 to Post 2015.” Journal of Global Ethics 11 (3): 366–380.
Quental, N., J. M. Lourenço, and F. Nunes da Silva. 2011. “Sustainable Development Policy: Goals, Targets and Political
Cycles.” Sustainable Development 19: 15–29.
Rabinovich, V. 2007. “Four “Constants” in Canadian Cultural Policy.” Canadian Themes / Thèmes canadiens (Winter) 4: 6–9.
Randle, K. 2015. “Class and Exclusion at Work: The Case of UK Film and Television.” In The Routledge companion to the cultural
industries, edited by K. Oakley and J. O’Connor, 330–343. London: Routledge.
Rao, V., and M. Walton. 2004. Culture and Public Action. Stanford: CA Stanford University Press.
Robertson, M. 2014. Sustainability: Principles and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Ross, A. 2010. Nice Work if You Can Get it: Life and Labor in Precarious Times. New York: NYU Press.
Roy Trudel, E., L. Heinämäki, and P. Kastner. 2016. Despite Gains, Europe’s Indigenous People Still Struggle for Recognition.
The Conversation. May 17. https://theconversation.com/despite-gains-europes-indigenous-people-still-struggle-for-
recognition-54330.
Scott, A. J. 2000. The Cultural Economy of Cities: Essays on the Geography of Image-Producing Industries. London: Sage.
Seghezzo, L. 2009. “The Five Dimensions of Sustainability.” Environmental Politics 18 (4): 539–556.
Sen, A. K. 1987. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. 2010. The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books.
Soini, K., and I. Birkeland. 2014. “Exploring the Scientific Discourse on Cultural Sustainability.” Geoforum 51: 213–223.
Soini, K., and J. Dessein. 2016. “Culture-sustainability Relation: Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Sustainability 8 (2):
167–179.
Sokka, S., and A. Kangas. 2007. “At the Roots of Finnish Cultural Policy: Intellectuals, Nationalism, and the Arts.” International
Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2): 185–202.
Stevenson, N. 2003. Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitan Questions. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Støvring, K. 2012. “The Cultural Prerequisites of Social Cohesion: With Special Attention to the Nation of Denmark.”
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32 (3/4): 134–152.
Throsby, D. 1997. “Sustainability and Culture Some Theoretical Issues.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 4 (1): 7–19.
Throsby, D. 1999. “Cultural Capital.” Journal of Cultural Economics 23 (1/2): 3–12.
Throsby, D., 2015. “Culture in Sustainable Development.” In Re|Shaping Cultural Policies: A Decade Promoting the Diversity
of Cultural Expressions for Development [2005 Convention Global Report], edited by UNESCO, 151–170. Paris: UNESCO.
Throsby, D., and E. Petetskaya. 2016. “Sustainability Concepts in Indigenous and Non-indigenous Cultures.” International
Journal of Cultural Property 23 (02): 119–140.
Torggler, B., R. Murphy, C. France, and J. Baltà Portolés, 2015. UNESCO’s Work on Culture and Sustainable Development:
Evaluation of a Policy Theme. IOS/EVS/PI/145 REV.2. Paris: UNESCO Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section.
UN (United Nations). 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
UNCTAD. 2008. Creative Economy Report 2008. New York: United Nations.
UNCTAD. 2010. Creative Economy Report 2010. New York: United Nations.
230 N. DUXBURY ET AL.

UNCTAD. forthcoming. Creative Economy Report 2016. New York: United Nations.
UNCTAD, and UNESCO. 2013. Creative Economy Report 2013 Special Edition: Widening Local Development Pathways. New
York: UNCTAD and UNESCO.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1990. Human Development Report 1990. New York: Oxford University
Press.
UNESCO. 1969. Cultural policy – a preliminary study. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1981. The Training of Cultural Animators and Administrators. Cultural Co-operation: Studies and Experiences, Joint
Study no. 10. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1982. World Conference on Cultural Policies: Final Report. Mexico City, 26 July – 6 August 1982. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1998. Action Plan on Cultural Policies for Development. Stockholm: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2001. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2005. Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2015. Re|Shaping Cultural Policies: A Decade Promoting the Diversity of Cultural Expressions for Development [2005
Convention Global Report]. Paris: UNESCO.
Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. 2014. Rewilding Vancouver: From Sustaining to Flourishing. An Environmental
Education and Stewardship Action Plan for the Vancouver Park Board. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.
Vestheim, G. 1994. “Instrumental Cultural Policy in Scandinavian Countries: A Critical Historical Perspective.” The European
Journal of Cultural Policy 1 (1): 57–71.
Vicario, L., and P. M. Martínez Monje. 2003. “Another ‘Guggenheim Effect’: The Generation of a Potentially Gentrifiable
Neighbourhood in Bilbao.” Urban Studies 40 (12): 2383–2400.
Vlassis, A. 2015. “Culture in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: the Anatomy of an International Mobilisation.” Third World
Quarterly 36 (9): 1649–1662.
Volkerling, M. 1996. “Deconstructing the Difference-engine: A Theory of Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural
Policy 2 (2): 189–212.
Watene, K., and M. Yap. 2015. “Culture and Sustainable Development: Indigenous Contributions.” Journal of Global Ethics
11 (1): 51–55.
WCCD (World Commission on Culture and Development). 1996. Our Creative Diversity. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
WCED (World Commission for the Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. New York: United Nations.
Wilks-Heeg, S., and P. North. 2004. “Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration [special issue].” Local Economy 19 (4): 305–311.
Williams, R. 1958. Culture and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.