Varieties of National Cultural Politics and Art Worlds in an Era of Increasing Marketization and Globalization

  • Erkki Sevänen
  • Simo Häyrynen
Part of the Sociology of the Arts book series (SOA)


Along the triumph of neoliberalist societal politics a profound process of marketization has been characteristic of national societies and world society since the 1980s. Owing to this process, both national societies and world society have increasingly functioned in the same way as capitalist enterprises function in “free market economy.” This process has also widely shaped national cultural politics and art worlds, as well as international or transnational art worlds. There are, however, differences between individual countries in how widely they have carried out this sort of politics. In part, the chapter explains these differences by presenting a typology of contemporary capitalist economies. Likewise, it explicates concepts like creative economy and the competitive state by which cultural theorists emphasize art’s increasing role in current capitalist economy.


  1. Alexander, Victoria D. 2005a. The American System of Support for the Arts: Artists and Art Museums. In Alexander and Rueschemeyer, 19–57.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2005b. Enterprise Culture in British Arts Policy. In ed. Alexander and Rueschemeyer, 58–100.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, Victoria D., and Marilyn Rueschemeyer. 2005. Art and the State. The Visual Arts in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Simulations. Trans. Paul Foss, Paul Patton, and Philip Beitchman. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1997. Art and Artefact. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1992. Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, Ulrich. 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus – Antworten auf Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Beeson, Mark. 2013. Developmental State in East Asia: A Comparison of the Japanese and Chinese Experience. Asian Perspective 33 (2): 5–39.Google Scholar
  9. Belina, Bernd. 2011. Kapitalismus, Raum und Staatensystem in der kritischen Geographie. In ed. Brink, 87–104.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, Tony. 1995. Opening Lecture. In Cultural Policy and Management in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of an International Symposium, ed. Tony Bennett. Warwick: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  11. Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Brink, Tobias Ten, ed. 2011. Globale Rivalitäten. Staat und Staatensystem im globalen Kapitalismus. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Bulletin. 2016. Troubled Times for Humanities in Higher Education. Bulletin LXIX (4): 9.Google Scholar
  14. Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Information Age: Economy, Culture and Society, The Rise of the Network Society. Vol. 1. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell. (Orig. pub. 1996).Google Scholar
  15. CPIF. 1995. Cultural Policy in Finland. European Programme for National Cultural Policy Review. Helsinki: The Arts Council of Finland, Research and Information Unit.Google Scholar
  16. Crouch, Colin. 2005. Models of Capitalism. New Political Economy 10 (4): 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ebenau, Matthias, and Victoria Liberatore. 2013. Neodevelopmentalist State Capitalism in Brazil and Argentina. Chances, Limits and Restrictions. Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 6 (1): 105–125.Google Scholar
  18. Fougner, Tore. 2006. The State, International Competitiveness and Neoliberal Globalization: Is There a Future Beyond ‘The Competition State’. Review of International Studies 32: 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilpin, Jeremy. 2001. Global Political Economy. Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Girard, A. 1972. Cultural Development: Experiences and Policies. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  21. Gualmini, Elisabetta, and Vivien A. Schmidt. 2013. State Transformation in Italy and France: Technocratic Versus Political Leadership and the Road from Non-Liberalism to Neo-Liberalism. In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 346–373.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, Peter A., and David Soskice, eds. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neo-liberalism. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hay, Colin, and Nicola J. Smith, 2013. The Resilience of Anglo-Liberalism in the Absence of Growth: The UK and Irish Cases. In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 289–312.Google Scholar
  25. Hayek, Friedrich. 2005. The Road to Serfdom: With the Intellectuals and Socialism. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  26. Helleiner, Eric, and Andeas Pickel, eds. 2005. Economic Nationalism in a Globalizing World. Ithaca/New York/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hucka, M, Z. Cvancarova, and J. Franek. 2016. The Nature and Evolution of Capitalism in the Czech Republic. Working Paper, April 2016. Accessed 8 Mar 2017.
  28. Jackson, Gregory, and Richard Deeg. 2006. How Many Varieties of Capitalism? Comparing the Comparative Institutional Analysis of Capitalist Diversity. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. Discussion Paper 06/2.Google Scholar
  29. Jessop, Bob. 2002. The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kantola, Anu. 2014. Unholy Alliances. Competitiveness as a Domestic Power Strategy. In National Policy-Making. Domestication of Global Trends, ed. Pertti Alasuutari and Ali Quadir, 44–60. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Kashara, Shigehisa. 2013. The Asian Developmental State and the Flying Geese Paradigm. United Nations. Discussion Papers No. 213, November 2013.Google Scholar
  32. Kirby, Peadar. 2009. The Competition State – Lessons from Ireland. Limerick Papers in Politics and Administration No. 1. Ireland: University of Limerick.Google Scholar
  33. Kouvelakis, Stathis. 2011. The Greek Cauldron. New Left Review, 72, November–December, 1–9.Google Scholar
  34. Lechevalier, Sébastian. 2014. The Great Transformation of Japanese Capitalism. Orig. La grande transformation du capitalism Japonais (2013). Trans. J.A.A. Stockwin. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Luhmann, Niklas. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Erster Teilband. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. Matsaganis, Manos. 2013. The Greek Crisis: Social Impact and Policy Responses. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  37. Mayall, James. 1990. Nationalism and International Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGuigan, Jim. 2004. Rethinking Cultural Policy. Glasgow: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2009. Cool Capitalism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  40. Münch, Richard. 1998. Globale Dynamik, lokale Lebenswelten. Der schwierige Weg in die Weltgesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2013. Academic Capitalism. Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Nussbaum, Martha. 2010. Not for the Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Orenstein, Mitchell A. 2013. Reassessing the Neo-Liberal Development Model in Central and Eastern Europe. In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 374–400.Google Scholar
  44. Rifkin, Jeremy. 2000. The Age of Access – How the Shift from Ownership to Access is Transforming Capitalism? London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Rueschemeyer, Marilyn. 2005. Art, Art Institutions and the State in the Welfare States of Norway and Sweden. In ed. Alexander and Rueschemeyer, 101–125.Google Scholar
  46. Schmidt, Vivien Ann. 2002. The Futures of European Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, Vivien A., and Mark Thatcher, eds. 2013a. Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 2013b. Theorizing Ideational Continuity: The Resilience of Neo-liberal ideas in Europe. In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 1–50.Google Scholar
  49. Schmidt, Vivien A., and Cornelia Woll. 2013. The State: The Bête Noire of Neo-Liberalism or its Greatest Conquest? In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 112–141.Google Scholar
  50. Schnyder, Gerhard, and Gregory Jackson 2013. Germany and Sweden in the Crisis: Re-Coordination of Resilient Liberalism? In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 313–345.Google Scholar
  51. Sevänen, Erkki. 2001. Art as an Autopoietic Sub-system of Modern Society. A Critical Analysis of the Concepts of Art and Autopoietic System in Luhmann’s Late Production. Theory, Culture and Society 18 (1): 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 2008. Towards a New Kind of System of Art. The Shift from the Modern to the Contemporary Sphere of Art from the Standpoint of System-Theoretical and Systemic Sociology. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  53. Thatcher, Mark, and Vivien A. Schmidt. 2013. Conclusion: Explaining the Resilience of Neo-Liberalism and Possible Pathways Out. In ed. Schmidt and Thatcher, 403–431.Google Scholar
  54. Vestheim, G. 2010. André Malraux, Augustin Girard og den franske kulturpolitikken 1959–1993. Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidsskrift 13 (02): 177–206.Google Scholar
  55. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2000. Globalization or the Age of Transition? A Long-Term View of the Trajectory of the World-System. International Sociology 15 (2): 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu, Chin-tao. 2002. Privatising Culture. Corporate Art Intervention Since the 1980s. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erkki Sevänen
    • 1
  • Simo Häyrynen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations