Editorial

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

that has already been addressed on several occasions in the course of the journals
lengthy existence.
1
And with reason. The missions of museums are part of a political
framework that ensures their social pertinence. The development of museums is the
direct result of their ability to respond to the issues that are produced by societies in
evolution. Returning to this theme at regular intervals in order to provide a perspective
of the question is therefore both necessary and normal on behalf of an international,
institutional journal.
At the same time, MUSEUM International hereby continues a policy of close
collaboration with the International Council of Museums and the members of its
executive committee, aiming to ensure a greater synergy between the professional and
the political community at the international level. It is therefore also normal for
MUSEUM International to have entrusted the editorship of this issue to Nancy Hushion,
a member of ICOMs Executive Council with a twofold expertise in both the public
and private sectors. Thanks to the knowledge and skill of its guest editor, the issue
provides an accurate and powerful image of the changing international landscape of
cultural policies.
Isabelle Vinson
A
t rst glance, and read from museums traditionally more conservative
perspective, the relationship between the two terms museums and
cultural policy is not immediately apparent. MUSEUM Internationals
exploration of such links, plus exploring whether such connections should
be proactive or reactive, are at the core of this issue of the journal.
The development and implementation of cultural policy is the purview of
governments, be they federal, state or municipal, or any one of the many other forms of
public authority that exist throughout the world. Museums are typically seen as the
4
ISSN 1350-0775, No. 232 (Vol. 58, No. 4, 2006) UNESCO 2006
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
beneciaries of such policies and while in some instances, they or their representative
organizations may be consulted in the developmental stages, they have rarely been
active players throughout.
The past decade, and perhaps even the past ve years, have witnessed
substantive changes in the interaction between three spheres: cultural policy, museums
and the public. It can be argued that some governments have seen (and even used)
cultural policy to encourage a far greater rapprochement between museums and
their publics, while in other instances, the linking of public interest and museum
programming has evolved naturally through the work of highly committed staff, in the
absence of such framing documents.
As museums continue to expand their involvement with their communities,
both geographical and cultural, searching out and responding to opportunities for
closer collaboration in the development of cultural policy becomes imperative.
Museums have become increasingly strategic in their thinking and in their actions,
as longer term planning gains greater importance. An additional consideration for
many countries is the increasingly rapid changes in elected government, which
may result in substantial shifts in the priority to be afforded to the heritage and
cultural sectors. Cultural policy is a tangible indication of a governments strategic
priorities and the philosophical base upon which it/they will structure future
funding. Surely this is not an area for museums to sit back and wait to see what
the outcome might be.
Working to acquire even an informal global perspective on the current and
future directions in this area for MUSUM International has been highly informative.
As is evident in the articles, there are almost as many approaches as there are countries.
Some countries have intentionally avoided the development of cultural policy;
others develop programs to stimulate the growth and development of museums that
can t as is and fairly well under the umbrella of cultural policy. There are examples of
cultural policy being used as the trigger for the construction of new, often national,
museums; and an additional grouping that have specically set out to establish their
strategic principles through cultural policy, and then work closely with museums and
heritage institutions to facilitate their implementation.
It is interesting to note how many of the cultural policies, tangible or implied,
are grounded in the need to articulate and secure funding for the museum sector. In
many instances, rst principles are assumed. There are, however, several instances
Editorial
ISSN 1350-0775, No. 232 (Vol. 58, No. 4, 2006) 5
outlined in this issue where the policy and the museum are intertwined so that,
ultimately, both become very positive reections of the other.
An additional assumption might be that museums need only be concerned with
those cultural policies that have the potential for direct impact on museums. This
perspective is rapidly changing as many museums look outward to the much broader
social environment and rmly take their place within it.
Or to pose the question differently, as does one of the articles: Are museums
targets or instruments of public policy?
Nancy Hushion
NOTE
1. See particularly Volumes XXV, No. 3, 1973, XXXIV, No. 2, 1982 and L, No. 3, 1998. These issues are available in their
entirety on the website of the journals digital archives: http://www.unesco.org/culture/museumjournal/. In order to access
all articles dealing with cultural policies since 1948, type cultural policy in the Basic Search window of the Archives site
of MUSEUM International.
Editorial
6 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)