IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13661-d699406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Definitions Matter: Dynamic Policy Framing of the Arts in Boston’s Sustainable Cultural Development

Author

Listed:
  • Xuefei Li

    (School of Government, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

  • Margaret Wyszomirski

    (Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA)

  • Biyun Zhu

    (School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK)

Abstract

Cultural sustainability has become a fourth pillar in sustainable development studies. Different from the research approach to embedding culture into conventional sustainable discourse, this article argues that the sustainability and resilience issues within the arts and cultural sector should be paid more attention to. Putting the arts and cultural sector in urban settings, sustainable cultural development entails dynamic policy framing and changing policy justifications in response to an evolving socioeconomic and political environment. Taking the policy framing of the arts as an analytical lens, this paper aims to investigate this dynamic change and key driving factors through an in-depth case study of Boston’s urban cultural development. This article finds that different definitions of the arts are associated with different arts-based urban development strategies across four stages of cultural development in Boston spanning a period of over 75 years. The working definition moved from art to the arts, then to the creative arts industry, and eventually to cultural assets and creative capital. The policy framing of the arts keeps evolving and layering in pursuit of more legitimacy and resources regarding groups of stakeholders, field industry components, types of industrial structure, and multiple policy goals. This dynamic policy framing has been driven by arts advocacy groups, policy learning process, urban leadership change, and cultural institutional change, allowing Boston to draw on a growing and diversifying set of cultural resources in pursuit of sustainable cultural development.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuefei Li & Margaret Wyszomirski & Biyun Zhu, 2021. "Definitions Matter: Dynamic Policy Framing of the Arts in Boston’s Sustainable Cultural Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13661-:d:699406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13661/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13661/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott, Allen J., 2010. "Cultural economy and the creative field of the city," MPRA Paper 32108, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Serhat Kaymas, 2020. "Geography … is it your destiny? Culturally sustainable development and creative industries nexus in the case of Turkey," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(10), pages 2040-2059, October.
    3. Throsby,David, 2010. "The Economics of Cultural Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521868259.
    4. Pralle, Sarah B., 2003. "Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 233-260, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suwala, Lech, 2017. "On Creativity: From conceptual ideas towards a systemic understanding," EconStor Conference Papers 221767, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-38, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Andréa Jean Baker, 2017. "Algorithms to Assess Music Cities," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, March.
    4. Bertacchini, Enrico & Dalle Nogare, Chiara, 2014. "Public provision vs. outsourcing of cultural services: Evidence from Italian cities," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 168-182.
    5. Christopher Pallas & Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "NGO monitoring and the legitimacy of international cooperation: A strategic analysis," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    6. Paul Dalziel, 2019. "Wellbeing economics in public policy: A distinctive Australasian contribution?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(4), pages 478-497, December.
    7. Castiglione, Concetta & Infante, Davide & Zieba, Marta, 2023. "Public support for performing arts. Efficiency and productivity gains in eleven European countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Ghazala Idrees & Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry, 2020. "Precursors of Pollen Allergies: An Anthropo-Economic Perspective," Global Economics Review, Humanity Only, vol. 5(2), pages 17-28, June.
    9. Hyemi Um & Jingwen Dong & Myeonggil Choi & Jaeyeob Jeong, 2021. "The Effect of Cultural City on Regional Activation through the Consumer Reactions of Urban Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, May.
    10. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    11. Marijn Faling & Robbert Biesbroek, 2019. "Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 525-547, December.
    12. Cappelli Lucio & D’ascenzo Fabrizio & Ruggieri Roberto & Rossetti Francesca & Scalingi Alessandra, 2019. "The attitude of consumers towards “Made in Italy” products. An empirical analysis among Italian customers," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 31-47, March.
    13. Lei Xiong & Cheng-Lein Teng & Bo-Wei Zhu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang, 2017. "Using the D-DANP-mV Model to Explore the Continuous System Improvement Strategy for Sustainable Development of Creative Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-37, October.
    14. Chiara Dalle Nogare & Monika Murzyn-Kupisz, 2021. "Do museums foster innovation through engagement with the cultural and creative industries?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(4), pages 671-704, December.
    15. Ugo Rossi & Arturo Di Bella, 2017. "Start-up urbanism: New York, Rio de Janeiro and the global urbanization of technology-based economies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(5), pages 999-1018, May.
    16. Emmanuelle Perin & Evelyne Léonard, 2011. "European sectoral social dialogue and national social partners," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 17(2), pages 159-168, May.
    17. Malgorzata Galecka & Katarzyna Smolny, 2021. "Productivity of Public Theatres in the Times of COVID-19: The Example of Polish Theatres," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 3), pages 667-678.
    18. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    19. Jen D Snowball & Geoff G Antrobus, 2021. "Festival value in multicultural contexts: City festivals in South Africa," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(6), pages 1256-1275, September.
    20. Cécile Doustaly & Vishalakshi Roy, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of the Economic Sustainability of Cultural Work in the UK since the COVID-19 Pandemic and Examination of Universal Basic Income as a Solution for Cultural Workers," Post-Print hal-03767292, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13661-:d:699406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.