Diffusion or diversity in cultural heritage preservation? comparing policy arrangements in Norway, Arizona and the Netherlands

Abstract

This chapter involves a comparative analysis of three policy arrangements in the field of cultural heritage preservation. The aim is to analyse and explain the similarities and differences between contemporary preservation practices in different Western countries. 'Cultural heritage' could be defined as the customs, beliefs, art, way of life and social organisation that a society or group has had for many years, that are considered to be important characteristics of its culture and that it wishes to conserve and pass on to future generations (Hornby et al., 2000; Howard, 2003). In this chapter, the concept of cultural heritage only refers to the category of built heritage, which involves all spatial elements and structures that were constructed in the past and that are regarded as very valuable (Nelissen and Bogie, 2000). Many different arguments are used for the preservation of the built heritage. It is often stated that it makes a positive contribution to our living environment and quality of life; that it provides material for research and education; that it is a source of inspiration for designers of new buildings, urban and rural landscapes; and that it generates income through recreation and tourism. Finally, many preservationists argue that some of the values of cultural heritage are absolute; that some kind of historic value is intrinsic to the whole notion of something being identified as truly old or 'authentic' (Cantacuzino and King, 1999; Clark, 2000; Mason, 2002; Nelissen and Bogie, 2000). Nowadays, a considerable amount of cultural heritage in Western society (Europe and North-America) is being preserved by governmental actors. In most Western countries however, the very first initiatives to preserve cultural heritage typically came from the side of the intellectual elite. Only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, governmental bodies were established with the explicit task of preserving the national heritage. Their work mainly consisted of listing significant historic buildings and protecting them through newly created preservation laws (Howard, 2003; Tyler, 2000). Today, most preservation policies are based on more or less similar principles and ideas such as: the obligation to perform research and documentation in order to generate and safeguard knowledge; the obligation to respect cultural heritage as a physical record of human activity; the obligation to safeguard the authenticity of historic buildings and sites; and the obligation to do no harm (Maturo, 2000). At the same time, current preservation practices still vary greatly: from minimal interventions and conservative repairs to artistic restorations and extensive adaptations according to the fashion of modern life (Jokilehto, 1999; Maturo, 2000). Moreover, policy practices in the field of cultural heritage preservation are continually changing. At present, there appears to be a general trend that preservation policies are becoming broader in scope. Preservationists are moving away from the idea of designating individual sites to the idea that the whole of the landscape may have significance. Accordingly, cultural heritage preservation is becoming increasingly integrated with policy fields such as land use planning, urban renewal and nature management. Furthermore, although preserving the national heritage remains an important policy goal, many preservationists argue that in our age of globalisation, it should be complemented by efforts to safeguard regional and local distinctiveness. Consequently, local and regional heritage is receiving more attention and preservation tasks are being decentralised to local and regional government levels. Finally, there is a growing variety as to the policy actors that are involved in cultural heritage preservation. In many Western countries, the role of non-governmental organisations, historic property owners and private property developers in developing and implementing preservation policies is increasing (Cantacuzino and King, 1999; Clark, 2000; Goverde, 2000; Howard, 2003). In order to analyse the similarities and differences between current preservation practices in Western society, I will compare three different policy arrangements in the field of cultural heritage preservation: the contemporary arrangements in Norway, the Netherlands and Arizona (since preservation arrangements differ considerably from state to state in the US, I concentrate on one of them and I can therefore not draw general conclusions). In accordance with the policy arrangements approach, the arrangements in Norway, Arizona and the Netherlands are analysed as the temporary stabilisations of the organisation and substance of cultural heritage preservation at national or state level. The comparison between the three preservation arrangements is based on two hypotheses. On the one hand, these three policy arrangements have developed within very different historical, social-political and geographical contexts, which has led to the emergence of divergent policy discourses and policy practices. In this perspective, policy arrangements are interpreted as contingent responses to specific circumstances and specific policy processes. At the same time, I am fascinated by the question whether the three policy arrangements are increasingly growing alike along the lines of general developments that are taking place in the field of cultural heritage preservation. Accordingly, I will explore the extent to which a process of policy diffusion is proceeding and I will examine the factors that either stimulate or restrain this process in the three policy arrangements under study. In summary, this chapter analyses and explains the similarities and differences between three different policy arrangements in the field of cultural heritage preservation against the background of (a) the specific contexts in which the policy arrangements have been (re)produced and (b) the process of policy diffusion that may be taking place. However, before I will analyse the three different policy arrangements, two different phases of cultural heritage preservation will be described. Furthermore, I will clarify my interpretation of the concepts 'policy discourses' and 'policy diffusion' and some remarks will be made on the applied research methodology. © 2006 Springer.