Indesign-Introduction.qxd 12/13/2006 9:30 PM Page 333 · Indesign-Introduction.qxd 12/13/2006 9:30 PM Page 336 What actual indicators and measures are best ... tem of scenario planning

Indesign-Introduction.qxd 12/13/2006 9:30 PM Page 333


Any indicator system requires a conceptualframework to guide its purpose, the selection of indi-cators and the kind of information needed. Using theframework presented in the Introduction to this vol-ume, the present chapter proposes the developmentof an integrated sequence of indicators and their pre-sentation around the notion of ‘indicator suites’. Thesesuites display information on selected facets of therelationships between cultures and globalization. Indeveloping this integrated indicator system, weaddress questions like: How can we identify the mostimportant indicators across a range of audiences,users and purposes, and why? What are the prioritiesin terms of data coverage, data collection, informationneeds as well as methodological developments in thefield? How can we collect, analyze and present datain effective, efficient and user-friendly ways?

Objectives and characteristics

The purpose of the indicator system is to offer anempirical portrait of certain key dimensions of therelationships between cultures and globalization.By implication, the system would neither try toachieve a comprehensive accounting of culture assuch, nor seek to report on all aspects of culturaldevelopments and policies that might be relevantfor national as well as international purposes.1

Generally speaking, cultural indicators that referprimarily to national frameworks or that have nomajor theoretical or policy relevance for the culture –globalization nexus would be beyond the scope ofwhat we are trying to measure, and will thereforereceive little attention. For example, data on the-ater and film production by country are less impor-tant than their transnational content, share anddistribution; even though obtaining the latter dataassumes the availability of the former. In otherwords, the proposed system does not aim tobecome a generic indicator system for the elabora-tion of cultural statistics (nor does it seek to replaceany existing systems). Rather, what we have in mind

is a specialized system focused on a substantivecore: the relationship between globalization andculture.

At the same time, the approach here is informedby work on cultural indicators research2 thataddresses either basic methodological and dataissues (Bonet 2004; Duxbury 2003; EuropeanUnion 2000; Fukuda-Parr 2001; Glade 2003;Goldstone 1998; Matarasso 2001; Schuster 2002)or questions of policy relevance (Kleberg 2003;Wiesand 2002; Wyszomirski 1998). Against thisbackground as well as the overall conceptualframework presented in the Introduction, the indi-cator system should aim for the following charac-teristics (Deutsch 1963; Anheier 2004):3

• Parsimony, i.e., the aim to ‘achieve most withleast’:

• Significance, i.e., focus on the truly criticalaspects of a phenomenon and its relationships;

• Combinatorial richness, i.e., the range ofhypotheses that can be tested with the systemand related to this, Organizing power, i.e., theability to bring in and integrate new aspects;

• Theoretical fruitfulness, i.e., the extent to whichthe system allows theory development; and

• Policy relevance, i.e., the extent to which the sys-tem is useful and of interest to policy-makers.

Challenges

The relationships between globalization andculture are too abstract and multifaceted for directobservation, and need to be broken down intodimensions and sub-dimensions. In other words,we need to make the relationships ‘operational’and prepare them for measurement purposes. Indoing so, we face a number of critical challenges.It is important to address these issues at theonset. They are the following: the unit of analysis,the aggregation problem, indicator selection, data

INTRODUCING ‘CULTURAL INDICATOR SUITES’Helmut K. Anheier


336 ⏐⏐ CULTURES AND GLOBALIZATION

coverage, and normative aspects.For each challenge,we propose a solution or at least a generalapproach on how to address it for the purposes ofthis volume.

What is the appropriate unit of analysis? Eventhough we have become accustomed to think ofcountries or nation states as the basic unit of analy-sis in international statistics and for purposes ofcomparative research, there are severe shortcom-ings to their use for studying phenomena related toglobalization. For one, the implied reification ofcountries as actors sui generis in a transnationalcultural space can be very misleading. For exam-ple, the United States does not ‘act’, its institutions,organizations, communities and citizens do. Theselower level units of analysis – and not aggregateunits such as country – enact and create culture,and make up much of the relationship betweenglobalization and culture. It is US corporations likeMicrosoft or the Disney Corporation, organizationslike Greenpeace or Amnesty International, mission-ary societies, immigrant groups, art museums, artists,activists, CEOs or academics that are frequentlythe relevant actors. Of course, the nation state asrepresented by government and governmental poli-cies plays an important role, as do the EU, the WTOor the World Bank, but the nation-state cannot bethe single focus of our attention as the primary unitof analysis.

For measurement purposes, it seems best tofocus on identifiable elements that ‘carry’ theessential characteristics that are of interest to us.In addition, we need to put these units in the con-text of related phenomena such as economic glob-alization global civil society, and the internationalrule of law.

How can the aggregation problem be solved?The excessive use of the nation-state as the unit ofanalysis in international statistics creates whatmethodologists call the aggregation problem andwith it a potential for ecological fallacies. Mostinternational data on culture are nation-based,which implies at least potentially a mismatchbetween the unit of observation (for example, orga-nizations) and the de facto unit of analysis (coun-try). For example, statistics indicate that the greatmajority of films shown in countries like the UKor Germany are from the United States (i.e.,Hollywood, and hence part of the United States cul-tural output), yet they neglect the fact that the cor-porations financing, producing and distributing the

movies are multinational corporations that are‘resident’ in several countries and with sharehold-ers and stakeholders in perhaps even more. If theglobalization of culture is qualitatively different fromnational and international units of analysis, then itcan’t simply be the additive score of nation-basedobservations

The problem behind the misattribution of datato units is primarily one of prevailing practiceswhereby data are aggregated and reported atnational levels, and cannot be disaggregated andreconstituted at the supra-national level. This is theconsequence of scholte’s (1999) and Beck’s (2001)‘methodological nationalism’ that plagues the socialsciences. In some cases, however, the country can-not be avoided as the unit of analysis, and in othersit may well be the appropriate unit, for example with respect to international legal issues or to tradebarriers.

Generally, the approach taken in this volume is toavoid taking the country as the primary reportingunit whenever data on more appropriate units areavailable. For example, rather than reporting onlyon how many book titles a country publishes peryear, we would also focus on the share of the globalbook market held by various multinational publish-ing corporations; or what titles or genres are themost diffused transnationally. In the case of moviesor music titles, we would look for studios, labels andcorporations and report share of global output andpenetration.

Clearly, given the still-limited development andavailability of cultural indicators that are compara-ble cross-nationally, we would not be able to followa uniform strategy, and the general approach isto develop more specific indicator-data suitesaround appropriate units of analysis. By indicator-data suite, we mean the range of data needed todescribe the characteristics of a selected indicator.For example, for measuring the globalization ofbook publishing, we would use the total marketshare of transnational publishing houses as oneindicator. The characteristics of interest would bebook titles, sales, etc.; and indicators to be reported(and which can be calculated once we have thedata available) would be concentration and diffu-sion measures. In this case, we would use organi-zations as the unit of analysis; in others it could beproducts and artifacts (e.g., books); and in otherspeople, as in the globally most widely printed/sold/read authors in particular genres.


What actual indicators and measures are bestsuited for portraying the central dimensions of therelationship between cultures and globalization?Obviously, these measures range from cultural toeconomic, political, and social indicators, andmay even involve more qualitative assessments ofissues such as human rights, conflicts, and globalgovernance. To answer the question, we need toexamine available approaches and indicators, andselect those that are closest to the intended mean-ing of the concepts involved, i.e., the conceptualframework (see below). Whenever possible, wewill be guided by theoretical approaches aroundspecific topics or issues. For example, a number oftheories have been proposed to understand indi-vidual identity, and we can mine such theorieswhen selecting indicators, and refer back to them.

What is the data coverage and availability?Much of the data needed to report on the relation-ship between cultures and globalization may not bereadily available or not exist at all. Moreover, partsof the data may be qualitative and even involvevalue judgements of one kind or another. As in thecase of indicators, we need to explore a broadrange of potential data sources. In some cases,however, appropriate data can be found, althoughwith limited country coverage and other aspectsthat reduce comparability. Thus, for each indicator-data suite selected, we conducted a detailed analy-sis of data coverage, quality and periodicity. We willupdate this search on an annual basis in the hopesthat over time, data coverage will become morecomprehensive and data quality improved.

Is culture essentially a normative concept?Even if culture is often seen and treated as a value-free concept in academic discourse, or as largely neu-tral for creative expression among arts circle, it carriesprofound normative implications for others that rangefrom fears about a ‘clash of civilizations’ (Huntington1996), to expectations of a more humane, inclusiveworld and the possibility of an ethical consensus(Küng 1998). Not surprisingly, the aspirations and thenorms these positions imply are contested, and theindicator system proposed here would do well toaccommodate data on the normative interpretationsand implications of the relationships between culturesand globalization without favoring one over the other.

How can we achieve policy relevance? Socialscience data tend to be somewhat removed from

the information requirements of policy-makers. Atbest, they need ‘translation’ into policy terms, and atworst, they are frequently out of date (even whenonly 2–3 years old) and incomplete. In response,and in the medium to long term, we propose a sys-tem of scenario planning around cultural issues.This will involve an information-gathering processthat relies on a global network of experts who serveas ‘listening posts’ and report on ongoing develop-ments in the field of culture and globalization, aspart of a systematic and coordinated survey.

Different approaches

These challenges, and we could add others aswell, are formidable, to be sure, and some mayquestion the utility and feasibility of an indicatorand data system on cultures and globalizationaltogether. Fortunately, however, a variety ofapproaches have been proposed that are useful forour purposes and from which we can learn anddraw critical lessons.

First, the UNDP approach in the HumanDevelopment Report (2000) was to select indica-tors and data around the Human DevelopmentIndex based on a specific definition of development.Development was defined as extending choices topermit the kind of life that people wish to lead. Thisdefinition was broken down into components ordimensions of ability to make choices: leading along and healthy life; being knowledgeable; enjoy-ing a decent standard of living; enjoying personalsecurity; participating in the life of the community;enjoying the respect of others. In a next step, indi-cators were selected such as life expectancy, liter-acy rates, per capita income, etc. Finally, under theumbrella of Monitoring Human Development, theindicators were integrated in a sequence of tablesorganized around a conceptual framework of whathuman development means:

Enlarging people’s choices:

• Human Development Index

To lead a long and healthy life:

• Statistics on Demographic trends• Statistics on Commitment to health: resources,

access and services• Statistics on Water, sanitation and nutritional

status

INTRODUCING ‘CULTURAL INDICATOR SUITES’ ⏐⏐ 337


• Statistics on Leading global health crises andrisks

• Statistics on Survival: progress and setbacks

To acquire knowledge:

• Statistics on Commitment to education: publicspending

• Statistics on Literacy and enrollment• Statistics on Technology: diffusion and creation

To have access to the resources needed for adecent standard of living:

• Statistics on Economic performance• Statistics on Inequality in income/consumption• Statistics on Structure of trade• Statistics on Rich country responsibilities: aid,

debt relief and trade• Statistics on Flows of aid, private capital and

debt• Statistics on Priorities in public spending• Statistics on Unemployment

While preserving it for future generations:

• Statistics on Energy and the environment

Protecting personal security:

• Statistics on Refugees and armaments• Statistics on Victims of crime

And achieving equality of men and women:

• Statistics on Gender-related development index

Second, on Our Creative Diversity (1996), theWorld Commission on Culture and Developmentlinked culture and development by stating thatdevelopment is ‘the opportunity to choose a full andsatisfying, valuable and valued way of livingtogether, the flourishing of human existence in allits forms and as a whole’. It also set a standard forevaluating progress around the following keytenets:

• Cultural freedom of both the community and theindividual

• Respect for pluralism

• Recognition that culture is dynamic but evolving• Ethos of universal human rights

UNESCO subsequently translated these tenetsinto six areas (UNESCO/UNRISD, 1997; UNESCO,1998):

• Global ethics: observance of human rights andthe rule of law

• Cultural vitality: media, literacy, preservation,etc.

• Cultural diversity: access, participation, equity• Participation in creative activity: participation of

groups in creative activities• Access to culture: do groups have access to

creativity of others?• Cultural conviviality: concern with diversity and

respect of others

In contrast to UNDP’s Human Developmentapproach, the above six areas are clearly less‘clean’ conceptually and some overlap existsamong them. Not surprisingly, therefore, the actualtables presented in UNESCO’s World CultureReport 1998 and 2000 do not appear to follow theoperationalization of the six areas. Instead, theReport lists six rather different topics:

Statistics on Cultural Activities:

• Newspapers and books• Libraries and cultural papers• Radio and television• Cinema and film• Recorded music

Statistics on Cultural Practices and Heritage:

• Leading languages• Leading religions• National festivals• Folk and religious festivals• Most visited cultural site• Most visited natural site• World heritage sites

Statistics on Ratifications:

• Cultural and labor conventions• Human rights conventions



Statistics on Cultural Trade and CommunicationTrends:

• Trends in cultural trade• Distribution of cultural trade by type• Tourism flows• Communication

Statistics on Translations:

• Translations of books• Translators• Most frequently translated language

Statistics on Cultural Context:

• Education• Tertiary education abroad• Human capital• Demographic and health• Economic• Social security• Environment and biodiversity

The result was that the link between cultureand development as postulated by the WorldCommission was not in fact fully explored becausethe conceptual framework and the empirical level ofindicators and data did not match. Moreover, thedistinctions between activities, practices, trade andcommunication and translations remained unclearand made the selection and grouping of indicatorsappear somewhat arbitrary.

Third, a different path has been taken by authorssuch as Mercer (2002: 60–1), who have proposedmore systematic indicator sets:

• Cultural Vitality, Diversity and Convivialityi.e., Statistics measuring the health and sus-tainability of the cultural economy, and theways in which the circulation and diversity ofcultural resources and experiences can con-tribute to quality of life

• Cultural Access, Participation and Consumptioni.e., Statistics measuring opportunities for andconstraints to active cultural engagement

• Culture, Lifestyle and Identityi.e., Statistics evaluating the extent to whichcultural resources and capital are used toconstitute specific lifestyles and identities

• Culture, Ethics, Governance and Conducti.e., Statistics evaluating the extent to whichcultural resources and capital can contributeto and shape forms of behavior by both indi-viduals and collectivities.

These indicator sets have then been related tothe economic concept of the value production chain,as follows:

• Creation: the conditions and capacity for cre-ation and innovation of values in both materialand immaterial forms

• Production and reproduction: the transformationof values into tangible and intangible forms

• Promotion and knowledge: activities and capac-ities to gain wider use and acceptance for theproduced and disseminated value and product

• Dissemination and circulation: the mechanisms,processes and institutions that put values andproducts into public and private domains

• Consumption and use: the processes andcapacities for the use and consumption of val-ues and products.

Finally, they were put in a matrix form to revealdistinct indicator sets presented in Table 1.

While there is much to be commended about thisapproach, it has two major weaknesses for our pur-pose: first, the comprehensive nature of the indica-tor matrix leaves the wider question of ‘why’ and ‘forwhat purpose’ unanswered. In this sense, the indi-cator matrix is more like a statistical framework thatcan be put to different uses rather than an indicatorand data system that flows from a conceptualframework serving a specified purpose. Second,most of the data needed for the indictors suggestedby Mercer (2002: 156–63) are simply not availablefor most countries, requiring therefore a major datacollection effort that is well beyond the capacities ofthe initiators of this series.

There are, of course, important ways in which theframework proposed here differs from what Mercer,UNDP and UNESCO have achieved. First, it is notabout culture as such but about the relationshipsbetween cultures and globalization; second, it ismuch less about countries or nation-states as theprimary and near-exclusive units of analysis. Theparsimony of the UNDP approach is to be com-mended, as is the comprehensiveness of Mercer’s




indicator matrix. Our search, therefore, is for acompromise between parsimony and comprehen-siveness, despite the paucity of available, compa-rable and high-quality data.

Assumptions

Like the approach underlying UNDP’s HumanDevelopment Index (UNDP 2000), measuring therelationship between globalization and culture mustrest on the premise of parsimony and emphasize aselect number of indicators that can be opera-tionalized, are measurable, and have a reasonabledegree of data availability. This approach impliesthat highly complex and demanding models may atpresent be of little use, as many indicators cannotbe observed and as data are often not readily avail-able; moreover, complex models cab be difficult tocommunicate to diverse audiences. Specifically, weproceed from six assumptions or premises:

Assumption 1 Rather than trying to fill in dataon a wide range of cultural aspects for as manycountries as possible (as UNESCO tried to do), orfor as many indicator matrices for as many coun-tries as possible (as Mercer’s approach would leadus to pursue), we suggest that such tasks would befutile due to the seriousness of the data problems

involved and the extraordinary amount of time andresources it would take to solve them. Instead, weproceed from the assumption that only a differentapproach could offer a realistic way forward – anapproach along the lines of the indicator suites pro-posed below.

Assumption 2 Any measurement of the rela-tionship between cultures and globalization will besimpler and less perfect than the richness, variety,and complexity of what it tries to measure. As ana-lytic and operational concepts, globalization andculture as well as the relationship between themmust necessarily abstract from historical and cur-rent variations in their development, and disregardsignificant cultural, political, and social differences.The information presented in the indicator and datasystem aims to provide the essential characteristicsof the relationship and its context.

Assumption 3 The relationship between cul-tures and globalization is a multifaceted, emergingas well as changing phenomenon that is different indifferent parts of the world, hence the indicator anddata system must take account of this essentialcharacteristic. In particular, some indicators may beless ‘global’ in their meaning and relevance thanothers. Put differently, not all indicators will beglobalization pure; some will address internationaland transnational phenomena that can be limited

340

Table 1 Indicator sets and value stages

Value stages/ Creation Production Promotion Dissemination Use andIndicator sets and and Circulation Consumption

Knowledge

Vitality,diversity,conviviality Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set

Culturalaccess,participationconsumption Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set

Lifestyle andidentity Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set

Ethics,governance,conduce Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set Indicator set


to regions of the world that are not necessarilycontiguous geographically, such as diaspora com-munities or transnational professions.

Assumption 4 As the essence of the relation-ship between cultures and globalization may varywith theoretical approach, disciplinary outlook, orpolicy-related interests, the indicator and data sys-tems should be based on an open conceptualframework that emphasises various aspects andtake account of different dimensions and orienta-tions. For example, economists might emphasizeintellectual property rights and cultural flows as crit-ical factors, whereas sociologists would point tocultural value patterns and changes as focal areasof interest, and political scientists might focus onaspects of global governance and transnationalinterest groups.

Assumption 5 The operationalization andmeasurement of the relationship between culturesand globalization has a strategic-developmentdimension. We view the current profiles of the rela-tionship as an evolving system that can be per-fected over time. Feedback received from the socialservices and policy communities will help improvethe data situation over time so that future editionsof the Yearbnook can build on each other. In otherwords, the proposed system is an evolving one thatmakes use of available information to the greatestextent possible.

Assumption 6 We no longer assume that‘country’ is the performed unit of analysis. Otherunits, be they organizations, communities, networks,products, artifacts or events are important as welland may indeed emerge as units more appropriateto the task – For example: leading procedures of cul-tural products by corporation rather than country;copyright and patent holders by firm rather thancountry; globally relevant books, movies, TV series,stage productions, papers, websites, museums,paintings, sites, events, etc; cities with high concen-trations of cultural productions, etc.

Focus and framework

For our purpose, ‘culture’ in the broad senserefers to the social construction, articulation andreception of meaning. It involves value systems,forms of creation, enactment, presentation andpreservation as well as symbols, artifacts and objects.This definition includes ‘culture’ in the narrow sense

as the creation, presentation, preservation, andappreciation of work of art. Figure 1 puts the focusof the indicator and data systems on the relation-ship between globalization and culture.

This relationship exists in a context that is bothanalytical and factual: It is analytical because cul-tural globalization does not exist in isolation fromother globalization processes; a book or movie is acultural, economic and legal entity at the sametime. What the analytic focus on the culture does isemphasize some aspects of globalization overothers it treats as contextual. The context is factualin the sense that other globalization processes aretaking place, which may differ in strengths, scope,and implications. What the factual focus achieves isto bring in empirical facts from these other global-ization processes as they relate to culture. Forexample, international trade laws may not be writ-ten with a focus on cultural matters, but the formercertainly influence the latter.

Specifically, we have three contextual patternsand processes in mind: first, economic globaliza-tion in terms of trade and the rise of integrated,transnational productions and distribution systemsdominated by large transnational corporations andfinancial markets; second, a transnational, andincreasingly global, civil society has emerged morefully since the end of the Cold War, facilitated by therise of international novgovernmental organiza-tions, activitist networks, and civil value patterns;and third, the ‘thickening’ of the international rule oflaw has continued as well, although unevenly andwith persistent enforcement problems and nationalistinterpretations of global governance.

We have already suggested that we can think ofculture in many ways: as a system of artisticendeavors and realm of creativity; as a social sys-tem of meaning and values; as an economic sys-tem of production, distribution and consumption;and as a political system of position of power andinfluence (Figure 1). Each ‘lens’ or systemic view isequality valid and likely brings up different ques-tions, leading to different insights and implications.

The relationship between cultures and globaliza-tion is not only multifaceted from a systemic per-spective. Each systemic view brings different units ofanalysis and flows into consideration. These can betransnational and domestic, individuals, organiza-tions, or professions as well as institutional patterns,communities, and societies, including nation states(Figure 1).These units and flows are often connected,



leading to consequences. For example, the rise ofthe Internet brought wide access to online news,which in turn has changed the business model of thenewspaper industry, the role of journalism with theincreased popularity of blogs etc.

Table 2 presents the implementation of the frame-work. It shows the context of globalization, and thefour systemic views (social aspects of culture;economic aspects of culture; culture as a systemof sites, events and flows; and culture as a politicalsystem). Each ‘lens’ is broken down into major

components and sub-components that make upindividual indicator suites. For example, the socialaspects of culture are broken down into values andinstitutions, knowledge, and practices and heritage.In turn, values are further refined in terms of identi-ties (individual and collective), economic social, polit-ical values religious values and institutions, andgender. The result is an integrated, thematic hierar-chy of indicators on the relationship between cultureand globalization, and contextualized in relation toother globalization processes and patterns.

342

Economicglobalization

Political–legalglobalization

Global civil society

Culture andGlobalization

System Focus

Social aspects ofculture as system of meaning and

values

Economic aspectsof culture

Culture as art andrealm of creativity

Political aspectsof culture

Transnationaland global

Societies/Countries/

Communities/Nations

Institutions/Organizations/

ProfessionsIndividuals

Context

Descriptive and Analytic Focus

Units of Analysis of Entities and Flows

Figure 1 Framework for the World Cultures Report


343

Table 2 Indicator Suite Matrix

The context ofCulturalGlobalization Economic globalization Global civil society Political & legal globalization

• Trade flows, TNC’s • Extensity and intensity International organisationsrule of law and treaties

Social Aspects of Values and institutions Knowledge Heritage and Practicesculture as system • Identities • Creation • Hertiage preservation &of meaning, values • Economics • Dissemination destructionand practices • Social • Storage • Environment

• Political • Innovation and • Participation• Religious protection • Sports• Gender• Religious Institutions

Culture as economic Economy Professions Corporations andsystem of production, • Industries • Artistic and cultural organizationdistribution and • Global arts market industries professions • Transnational culturalconsumption • Cultural Consumptions & corporations

Expenditures • Cultural INGOs and• Trade in goods and Foundations

services

Culture as system Global cities and events Communication and media Movements and communitiesof communication • Global cities • Languages • Transportation-Airportsand movements • Symbolic sites and • Print Media • Tourism

significant cities • Books • Migration• Global events • Music • Refugees & asylum

• Movies seekers• TV & Radio • Transnational communities• TV & Online News • Transnational • Internet social/cultural movements• Blogs• Telephones

Culture as a Regulatory frameworks Policy Conflict and cooperationpolitical system • International regulatory • Cultural diplomacy • Current conflicts and

frameworks and organizations and tensionsagencies coalitions • Terrorism

• International standards • Conflict resolution and UNPeacekeeping

• Human rights• Arms & military• Transnational crime,

corruption


How to develop and presentindicator suites

The notion of indicator suites is informed by Tufte’s(1997; 2001) groundbreaking approach to the visualdisplay of quantitative information, and the use ofgraphics in suggesting interpretations. In a departurefrom conventional approaches to indicators, we wouldneither seek to list data for indicators by country, notstrive to have a uniform layout for indicators in tabularfashion; rather we would use indicator suites andshow indicator characteristics by units of analysis thatseem appropriate for the purpose at hand, even if thepresentation will be different across indicator suites.

The basic idea behind the notion of indicatorsuites is that indicators of different units of analysis,and even with incomplete data, can still be broughttogether in a thematic (and not in primarily statisti-cal) way, and generate insights about relevantaspects of the relationships between culture andglobalization. What combines, and perhaps evenunites, indicators to a suite is not some statisticalrationale but a conceptual, qualitative one. Forexample, indicators or cultural tourism in terms ofdemand and spending, or destinations and travelpatterns across the world, involve different units ofanalysis and time-frames, and may well vary indata converge and quality. Hence from a statisticalperspective, it would be difficult to combine thesemultiple indicators into one or even two.

Yet conceptually, this limitation can be virtue:using separate indicators that capture differentcharacteristics of phenomenon such as culturaltourism or global arts markets may nonethelessallow for a qualitatively fuller presentation, descrip-tion, and interpretation. Knowledge of the complexityof cultural phenomena and the paucity of compara-ble data leads us to search for, and embrace, diver-sity in measurements, (i.e., indicators), and aim forcohesion in presentation and suggested interpreta-tions, (i.e., indicator suites).

In methodological terms, therefore, we are using(mostly) quantitative information in a (mostly) qual-itative way. Indicator suites are a compromise in thesense that they take the patchy and incompletestate of quantitative cultural indicators are given, atleast for the medium term, and refuse to accept theinterpretative limitation this state imposes on analy-sis. In other words, indicator suites make do withwhat is empirically available, and suggest a ‘storyline’ that is presented to diverse audiences.

The development of indicator suites is an iterative,almost hermeneutic process, as shown in Figure 2.It begins with the identification of a theme or topic,for example, communication and media. Bringing inprevious indicator work on this topic, this is brokendown into various dimensions such as print media,books, blogs, news and online news, music,movies, TV, radio, phones, and Internet. In eachcase, the questions become: What do we want toknow about this topic in the context of culture andglobalization, and why? And, what are some of thekey policy implications and issues the data couldsuggest of illuminate?

For example, for the dimensions TV and onlineNews, it was important to learn how the viewernumber and patterns of major global news outletsdiffer amongst each other, and what this suggestsfor information policy. These outlets collect, pre-pare and disseminate news for millions of view-ers; if we include via wire services, this addsmany more listeners and readers. Therefore theseoutlets have a major impact on global awarenessand information availability as well as access.This required a look at online news consumptionsand audience profiles for each of the majoroutlets.

As the last example suggests, once we have con-ceptual and policy-related justification for a topic,an initial operationalization (news consumption,audience profile, etc.) leads to a search for possibleindicators and data, with a continued process ofdata evaluation, incorporating data sets, andpreparing them for analysis (see Figure 2). Thisintermediary product is an initial indicator suite thatis then assessed in terms of parsimony, signifi-cance, combinatorial richness, organizing power,theoretical fruitfulness, and policy relevance. Forexample, the indicator suite for ‘book’ suite includesfour major dimensions or subtopics:

• Annual number of books published by languageand region

• The largest book markets by volume and marketvalue

• The market share, subsidiaries and holdings ofmajor publishers in different region

• The number of book publishers by country.

We arrived at the relatively small number of indi-cators in a iterative fashion by examining alterna-tive indicators, measures and data suggested in



345

Operationalization

What are the policyimplications& issues?

Policy Question:

Indicator suite

Multiple,AlternativeIndicators

MultipleDatasets

Assessment

Research Question:

What do wewant to know &

Why?

DataEvaluation

DataSearchTheme

Preparation

Figure 2 Developing Indicator Suites

1In recent years, a number of international conferences have produced useful material on cultural indicators, mostly in thecontext of international statistics. See, for example: International Symposium on Culture Statistics, Montreal, October 2002,http://www.colloque2002symposium.gouv.qc.ca/h4v_page_accueli_fr.htm);Taking the Measure of Culture,Princeton University, New Jersey, June 7–8, 2002,http://www.princeton.edu/culturalpolicy/moc.html;International Symposium on Culture Statistics, Montreal, October 2002http://www.colloque2002symposium.gouv.qc.ca/h4v_page_acceil_an.htm;UNESCO/CONACULTA International Seminar on Cultural Indicators, Centro Nacional de las Artes,Mexico, DF, Mexico, 7–9 May 2003, http://sic.conaculta.gob.mx/seminorio/menu.html, or theExperts meeting on cultural indicators, Interarts, Barcelona, 20–21 November 2003.2IFACCA (2005) offers a useful and comprehensive overview of the state of the art in the field of cultural indicators.3See Pignataro (2003), Brown and Corbett (1997), and Adams et al. (2004) on sililar sets of criteria that are more gearedtowards indicator assessments.


previous work on the subject or presented byagencies such as UNESCO’s Institute of Statistics.Taken together, this parsimonious set of indicatorspointed to what seems significant in the context ofculture and globalization: the rise of large publish-ing corporations in the context of changing tech-nologies and business models. It allowed us torelate changes in the book industry to the Internetsuite, the print media suite as well as others. Inother words, it helped gain organizing power andcombinational richness for interpretative purposes.

The data for the indicator suite on the Internet isdifferent, of course, and offers indicators or broad-band subscribes, growth in Internet usage acrossworld regions, and the distribution of public wirelessaccess points, among others. The suite on globalarts markets includes data on major auction houses,art dealers and galleries, data on leading artists, etc.The indicator suites combine structural and flowmeasures, and make use of maps, charts and fig-ures rather than long and complex tabular presenta-tions. The various elements of such indicatory suitesare graphically presented on double page spreads,with text pointing to major findings, showing connec-tions, suggesting interpretations, and providing fur-ther references and source material.

Of course, given the pioneering nature of this exer-cise, meeting the standards of parsimony, signifi-cance, combinational richness, organizing power,theoretical fruitfulness, and policy relevance is ourmedium- to long-term goal, and can barely beachieved in a first attempt such as the one presentedhere. We are aware of some of the major gaps in theindicator system. Among the most serious omissionsare: indicator suites on human sexuality, food, fashion,design, architecture, performing arts and theater com-panies etc. Only lack of resources and time has pre-vented us from covering these topics in this edition ofthe series and we are set to expand coverage in futurevolumes. Moreover, for those topics covered that year,it is important to keep in mind that the assessmentand development of indicator suites is an open-endedprocess. It typically involves two, three and often more‘cycles’ of interaction topic identification and justifica-tion, indicator review and selection, data collectionand analysis, and suite construction.

In terms of data gathering, we did not collectoriginal data, and relied on secondary data exclu-sively. Virtually all of the data collected for the indi-cator suites presented here come from the greatwealth and variety of online data sources availableon the Internet. Of course, we are well aware thatwhile much information is increasingly availableonline, much other useful information is not. TheInternet, perhaps less so than more conventionaldata repositories, is biased in the information avail-able and retrievable. Like others who have workedin the field of cultural indicators, we were frequentlyfrustrated by the lack of data outside the developedworld. We hope to improve the coverage of non-Western sources and data in future volumes.

Conclusion

An integrated display of indicator suites togetherwith narrative description and analysis is meant toprovide an overview of the main dimensions andcontours of culture in both the broad and thenarrow sense of the world. The list of indicatorsuites and indicators, including their operationaliza-tion and justifications, is not fixed and will certainlydevelop and improve over time, and in consultationwith international and national statistical offices aswell as experts in the field. We hope to garnerencouragement and constructive criticism as ourwork continues and as we seek to perfect what ispresently little more than an initial attempt to cometo terms with one of the most vexing of data prob-lems in the social sciences.

Each edition of this series includes only a portionof the full range of the indicators and data used inconstructing indicator suites, with additional mater-ial available to readers on a dedicated website,Finally, as each volume takes a particular thematicfocus (e.g., cultural conflicts; the cultural economy,the arts and creativity etc), we will place a specialfocus on indicator suites that highlight the dimen-sions and trends of particular relevance to thatyear’s topic. In this edition, the focus on culturalconflicts, including terrorism, and the cleavagestructures and ‘fault lines’ innolved.




Adams, T., Ahonen, P., and Fisher, R. (2004) An InternationalEvaluation of the Finnish System of Arts Councils. Finland:Ministry of Education. http://www.minedu.fi/julkaisut/kulttuuri/2004/opm3/AnInternational.pdf.

Anheier, H.K. (2004) Civil Society: Measurement and PolicyDialogue. London: Earthscan.

Beck, U. (2001) ‘The postnational society and its enemies’.Public Lecture: London School of Economics and PoliticalScience, 24 February.

Bonet, L. (2004) ‘Reflexiones a Propósito de Indicadores yEstadísticas Culturales’, Gestión Cultural, No. 7(abril). http://www.gestioncultural.org/boletin/pdf/indicadores/LBonet-Indicadores.pdf.

Brown, B., and Corbett, T. (1997) Social Indicators and PublicPolicy in the Age of Devolution, Institute for Research onPoverty, Special Report No. 71. http//www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/sr/sr71.pdf

Deutsch, K.W. (1963) The Nerves of Government. New York:The Free Press.

Duxbury, N. (2003) Cultural Indicators and Benchmarks inCommunity Indicator Projects: Performance Measures forCultural Investment? Canada: Strategic Research andAnalysis, Department of Canadian Heritage. http://www.culturescope.ca/ev_en.php?ID=3707_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC.

European Commission (2000) Cultural Statistics in the EU:Final Report of the LEG. Eurostat Working Paper,European Commission. http://www.utexas.edu/cofa/ unesco/documents/FINALREP.DOC.

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2001) In Search of Indicators of Culture andDevelopment: Review of Progress and Proposals for NextSteps. Second Global Forum on Human Development,Brazil, 9-10 October 2000. Text available on-line at:http://hdr.undp.org/docs/events/global_forum/2000/fuku-daparr2.pdf.

Galde, W. (2003) ‘Conceptualization and measurement prob-lems in developing cross-national cultural indicators: amethodological odyssey’. A paper prepared forUNESCO/CONACULTA International Seminar on CulturalIndicators, Centro Nacional de las Artes, Mexico, DF,Mexico, 7–9 May. http://www.utexas.edu/cofa/unesco/documents/Glade%20paper.pdf or http://sic.conaculta.gob.mx/seminario/menu.html

Goldstone, L. (1998) ‘Measuring Culture: Prospects andLimits’, in UNESCO, World Culture Report: Culture,Creativity and Markets. Paris: UNESCO.

Huntington, S.P. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and theRemarking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

International Federation of Arts Councils and CultureAgencies (IFACCA) (2005) Statistical Indicators for ArtsPolicy. Sydney: IFACCA. http://www.ifacca.org/ifacca2/en/organisation/page09_BrowseDart.asp.

Kleberg, C.-J. (2003) ‘International co-operation for culturalpolicy motivated research: setbacks and promises’,Culturelink, No. 40, Vol. 14: 99–132.

Kung, H. (1998) A Global Ethic for Global Politics andEconomics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matarasso, F. (2001) Cultural Indicators: A Preliminary Reviewof Issues Raised by Current Approaches. Comedia. http://www.comedia.org.uk/downloads/ACEIND-1.DOC.

Mercer, C. (2002) Towards Cultural Citizenship: Tools forCultural Policy and Development. Stockholm Bank ofSweden Tercentenary Foundation: Hedemora.

Pignataro, G. (2003) ‘Performance Indicators’, in R. Towse(ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar. https://ep.eur.nl/retrieve/1379/TOWSE+EBOOK_pages0378-0384.pdf.

Scholte, J.-A. (1999) ‘Globalization: Prospects for ParadigmShift’, in M. Shaw (ed.), Politics and Globalization. London:Routledge.

Schuster, J. (2002) ‘Informing cultural policy – data, statistics,and meaning. Paper presented at International Symposiumon Culture Statistics, Montreal, October 21–23. http://www.colloque2002symposium.gouv.qc.ca/PDF/Schuster_paper_Symposium.pdf

Tufte, E. (1997) Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities,Evidence and Narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

– (2001) The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

UNESCO/UNRISD (1997) ‘Towards a World Report onCulture and Development: Constructing Cultural Statisticsand Indicators, Report of the Workshop on CulturalIndicators of Development’. UNRISD/UNESCO Occasionalpaper series on culture and development, Number 1,Paris.

UNESCO (1998) World Culture Report: Culture, Creativityand Markets. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO (2000) World Culture Report: Cultural Diversity,Conflict and Pluralism. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

United Nations Development Programme (2000) HumanDevelopment Report 2000: Human Development andHuman Right. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wiesand, A. (2002) ‘Comparative cultural policy researchin Europe: a change of paradigm’, Canadian Journal ofCommunication, Vol. 27: 369–78. http://www.cjc-online.ca/title.php3?page=24&journal_id=43.

World Commission on Culture and Development (1996) OurCreative Diversity: Report of the World Commission onCulture and Development. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Wyszomirski, M. (1998) ‘The arts and performance review,policy assessment, and program evaluation: focusing onthe ends of the policy cycle’, Journal of Arts Management,Law and Society, Vol. 28 (3): 191–99.

REFERENCE



Documents

Indesign-Introduction.qxd 12/13/2006 9:30 PM Page 333 · Indesign-Introduction.qxd 12/13/2006 9:30 PM Page 336 What actual indicators and measures are best ... tem of scenario planning